mi  mi ! 


5    ^{oLi' 


'J:?130NVS01^'       %a3AINrt3WV 


-< 


.  .uF TMimPx/. 


^<!/0JllV3JO^ 


,.....aV 


^. 


I   5 


v©;jiyiivMni^'^     '  ^<9AHvaan# 


Ui 


% 


^  1 


^^ 


.^lOSANCElf/^ 

o 


/  -n         «-J 

%a3AiNaav\v> 


^lOSANGElfj^ 

o  "    ^ 


%a3AiNnBv 


.v^lilBRARYQr. 


^^<!/0jnV3JO^ 


,^;0FCAIIF0% 


5 


..in<:.nurFiff«. 


Yi 


j8in^>^     '^OAav.aaiH^      %i3dnvso#     "%a3AiNfi-3Wv' 


\vm//j 


^mmms^ 


%}13AIN 


vvlOSANCFifr.; 

°^     (j 


'^^mhm]^'^ 


^tllBRARYC/ .        <^HW 


M  i.CJA 


,A.^H\mon^^, 


£2  ( 


LIFO/?^, 


aaiH^ 


IVER% 


^lOSANCEl£x> 
o 


%a3AiN 

.^lOSANCElfT^, 


1^ 


■\w 


Mi* 


'^^omm^ 


RARYQ/-.       <e^UIBRARYGr.         AWtUNIVERS//,         .V 


ANCIENT    SOCIETY 


RESEARCHES    IN    THE    LINES    OF  HUMAN  PROGRESS 

FROM  SAVAGERY,   THROUGH  BARBARISM 

TO   CIVILIZATION 

BY 

LEWIS   H.   MORGAN,    LL.D 

Member  of  the  National  Academy  of  Sciences,    A  uthor  of  "  The  League  of  the  Iroquois^'' 

"'The  American  Beaver  and  his  Works,''''  ^''Systems  of  Consanguinity  and 

Affinity  of  the  Human  Family,''''  Etc. 


Nescit  vox  missa  revert i, 

HORACE. 


NEW  YORK 

HENRY   HOLT  AND  COMPANY 

1877 

91022 


Copyright,  1877, 
By  HENRY  HOLT. 


TO   THE    REVEREND 

J.    H.    McILVAINE,    D.  D., 

LATE    PROFESSOR    OF    BELLES-LETTRES    IN    PRINCETON    COLLEGE, 
THIS  VOLUME   IS  DEDICATED, 

IN   RECOGNITION   OF    HIS    GENIUS   AND    LEARNING, 

AND   IN   APPRECIATION   OF   HIS   FRIENDSHIP. 


Cum  prorepserunt  primis  animalia  terris, 
Mutum  et  turpe  pecus,  glandem  atque  cubilia  propter 
Unguibus  et  pugnis,  dein  fustibus,  atque  ita  porro 
Pugnabant  armis,  quae  post  fabncaverat  usus  : 
Donee  verba,  quibus  voces  sensusque  notarent, 
Nominaque  invenere  :  dehinc  absistere  belle, 
Oppida  coeperunt  munire,  et  ponere  leges, 
Ne  quis  fur  esset,  neu  latro,  neu  quis  adulter. 

— Horace,  Sat.,  I,  iii,  99. 

"  Modern  science  claims  to  be  proving,  by  the  most  careful  and  exhaustive  study  of  man 
and  his  works,  that  our  race  began  its  existence  on  earth  at  the  bottom  of  the  scale,  instead  of  at 
the  top,  and  has  been  gradually  working  upward  ;  that  human  powers  have  had  a  history  of 
development ;  that  all  the  elements  of  culture — as  the  arts  of  life,  art,  science,  language,  relig- 
ion, philosophy — have  been  wrought  out  by  slow  and  painful  efforts,  in  the  conflict  between  the 
soul  and  the  mind  of  man  on  the  one  hand,  and  external  nature  on  the  other." — Whitney's 
Oriental  and  Ling^uistic  Studies,  p.  341. 

"  These  communities  reflect  the  spiritual  conduct  of  our  ancestors  thousands  of  times 
removed.  We  have  passed  through  the  same  stages  of  development,  physical  and  moral,  and 
are  what  we  are  to-day  because  they  lived,  toiled,  and  endeavored.  Our  wondrous  civilization 
is  the  result  of  the  silent  efforts  of  millions  of  unknown  men,  as  the  chalk  cliffs  of  England  are 
formed  by  contributions  of  myriads  of  foraminifera." — Dr.  J.  Kaines,  Anihropologia,  vol.  i. 
No.  2,  p.  233. 


PREFACE. 


'  The  great  antiquity  of  mankind  upon  the  earth  has  been 
conclusively  established.  It  seems  singular  that  the  proofs 
should  have  been  discovered  as  recently  as  within  the  last 
thirty  years,  and  that  the  present  generation  should  be  the 
first  called  upon  to  recognize  so  important  a  fact.  I 

Mankind  are  now  known  to  have  existed  in  E^urope  in  the 
glacial  period,  and  even  back  of  its  commencement,  with 
every  probability  of  their  origination  in  a  prior  geological 
age.  They  have  survived  many  races  of  animals  with  whom 
they  were  contemporaneous,  and  passed  through  a  process 
of  development,  in  the  several  branches  of  the  human  fam- 
ily, as  remarkable  in  its  courses  as  in  its  progress. 

Since  the  probable  length  of  their  career  is  connected  with 
geological  periods,  a  limited  measure  of  time  is  excluded. 
One  hundred  or  two  hundred  thousand  years  would  be  an 
unextravagant  estimate  of  the  period  from  the  disappear- 
ance of  the  glaciers  in  the  northern  hemisphere  to  the  pres- 
ent time.  Whatever  doubts  may  attend  any  estimate  of  a 
period,  the  actual  duration  of  which  is  unknown/the  exist-  1 
ence  of  mankind  extends  backward  immeasurably,  and  loses 
itself  in  a  vast  and  profound  antiquity. 

This  knowledge  changes  materialfy  the  views  which  have 
prevailed  respecting  the  relations  of  savages  to  barbarians, 
and  of  barbarians  to  civilized  men.  It  can  now  be  asserted 
U£on  convincing  evidence  that  savagery  preceded  barbar- 
ism in  all  the  tribes  of  mankind,  as  barbarism  is  known  to 


vi  .  PREFACE. 

have  preceded  civilization.     The  history  of  the  human  race 
is  one  in  source,  one  in  experience,  and  one  in  progress^/ 

It  is  both  a  natural  and  a  proper  desire  to  learn,  if  possi- 
ble, how  all  these  ages  upon  ages  of  past  time  have  been 
expended  by  mankind ;  how  savages,  advancing  by  slow, 
almost  imperceptible  steps,  attained  the  higher  condition  of 
barbarians ;  how  barbarians,  by  similar  progressive  advance- 
ment, finally  attained  to  civilization  ;  and  why  other  tribes 
and  nations  have  been  left  behind  in  the  race  of  progress — 
some  in  civilization,  some  in  barbarism,  and  others  in  sav- 
agery. It  is  not  too  much  to  expect  that  ultimately  these 
several  questions  will  be  answered. 

Inveiitigns  and  discoveries  stand  -in  serial  relations  along 
the  lines  of  human  progress,  and  register  its  successive 
stages ;  while  social  and  civil  institutions,  in  virtue  of  their 
connection  with  perpetual  human  wants,  have  been  devel- 
oped from  a  few  primary  germs  of  thought.  They  exhibit 
a  similar  register  of  progress.  These  institutions,  inven- 
tions and  discoveries  have  embodied  and  preserved  the 
principal  facts  now  remaining  illustrative  of  this  experi- 
ence. When  collated  and  compared  they  tend  to  show  the 
unity  of  origin  of  mankind,  the  similarity  of  human  wants 
in  the  same  stage  of  advancement,  and  the  uniformity  of 
the  operations  of  the  human  mind  in  similar  conditions  of 
society. 

Throughout  the  latter  part  of  the  period  of  savagery,  and 
the  entire  period  of  barbarism,  mankind  in  general  were 
organized  in  gentes,  phratries  and  tribes.  These  organiza- 
tions prevailed  throughout  the  entire  ancient  world  upon 
all  the  continents,  and  were  the  instrumentalities  by  means 
of  which  ancient  society  was  organized  and  held  together. 
Their  structure,  and  relations  as  members  of  an  organic 
series,  and  the  rights,  privileges  and  obligations  of  the  mem- 
bers of  the  gens,  and  of  the  members  of  the  phratry  and 
tribe,  illustrate  the  growth  of  the  idea  of  government  in  the 
human  mind.  The  principal  institutions  of  mankind  origi- 
nated in  savagery,  were  developed  in  barbarism,  and  are 
maturing  in  civilization. 


PREFACE.  vii 

In  like  manner,  the  family  has  passed  through  succes- 
sive forms,  and  created  great  systems  of  consanguinity  and 
affinity  which  have  remained  to  the  present  time.  These 
systems,  which  record  the  relationships  existing  in  the 
family  of  the  period,  when  each  system  respectively  was 
formed,  contain  an  instructive  record  of  the  experience  of 
mankind  while  the  family  was  advancing  from  the  consan- 
guine, through  intermediate  forms,  to  the  monogamian. 

The  idea  of  property  has  undergone  a  similar  growth  and 
development.  TTommencing  at  zero  in  savagery,  the  pas- 
sion for  the  possession  of  property,  as  the  representative  of 
accumulated  subsistence,  has  now  become  dominant  over 
the  human  mind  in  civilized  races. 

The  four  classes  of  facts  above  indicated,  and  which  ex- 
tend themselves  in  parallel  lines  along  the  pathways  of 
human  progress  from  savagery  to  civilization,  form  the 
principal  subjects  of  discussion  in  this  volume. 

There  is  one  field  of  labor  in  which,  as  Americans,  we 
have  a  special  interest  as  well  as  a  special  duty.  Rich  as 
the  American  continent  is  known  to  be  in  material  wealth, 
it  is  also  the  richest  of  all  the  continents  in  ethnological, 
philological  and  arch^plogical  materials,  illustrative  of  the 
great  period  of  barbarism.  Since  mankind'  were  one  in 
origin,  their  career  has  been  essentially  one,  running  in  dif- 
ferent but  uniform  channels  upon  all  continents,  and  very 
similarly  in  all  the  tribes  and  nations  of  mankind  down  to 
the  same  status  of  advancement.  It  follows  that  the  his- 
tory and  experience  of  the  American  Indian  tribes  repre- 
sent, more  or  less  nearly,  the  history  and  experience  of  our 
own  remote  ancestors  when  in  corresponding  conditions. 
Forming  a,  part  of  the  human  record,  their  institutions, 
arts,  inventions  and  practical  experience  possess  a  high 
and  special  value  reaching  far  beyond  the  Indian  race  itself. 

When  discovered,  the  American  Indian  tribes  represented 
three  distinct  ethnical  periods,  and  more  completely  than 
they  were  elsewhere  then  represented  upon  the  earth. 
Materials  for  ethnology,  philology  and  archaeology  were 
offered  in    unparalleled  abundance;  but  as  these  sciences 


Viii  PREFACE. 

scarcely  existed  until  the  present  century,  and  are  but  fee- 
bly prosecuted  among  us  at  the, present  time,  the  workmen 
have  been  unequal  to  the  work.  Moreover,  while  fossil  re- 
mains buried  in  the  earth  will  keep  for  the  future  student, 
the  remains  of  Indian  arts,  languages  and  institutions  will 
not.  They  are  perishing  daily,  and  have  been  perishing  for 
upwards  of  three  centuries.  The  ethnic  life  of  the  Indian 
tribes  is  declining  under  the  influence  of  American  civiliza- 
tion, their  arts  and  languages  are  disappearing,  and  their 
institutions  are  dissolving.  After  a  few  more  years,  facts 
that  may  now  be  gathered  with  ease  will  become  impossi- 
ble of  discovery.  These  circumstances  appeal  strongly  to 
Americans  to  enter  this  great  field  and  gather  its  abundant 
harvest. 

Rochester,  New  York,  March,  1877. 


TABLE    OF    CONTENTS. 


PART   I. 

GROWTH   OF  INTELLIGENCE  THROUGH  INVENTIONS  AND 

DISCOVERIES.  ( 


CHAPTER  I. 

ETHNICAL  PERIODS. 

Progress  of  Mankind  from  the  Bottom  of  the  Scale. — Illustrated  by  Inven- 
tions, Discoveries  and  Institutions. — Two  Plans  of  Government — one 
Gentile  and  Social,  giving  a  Society  {Societas) ;  the  other  Political, 
giving  a  State  {Civitas). — The  former  founded  upon  Persons  and 
Genlilism  ;  the  Latter  upon  Territor}'  and  Property. — The  First,  the 
Plan  of  Government  of  Ancient  Society. — The  Second,  that  of  Modern 
or  Civilized  Society. — Uniformity  of  Human  Experience. — Proposed 
Ethnical  Periods — I.  Lower  Status  of  Savagery  ;  II.  Middle  Status 
of  Savagery  ;  III.  Upper  Status  of  Savagery  ;  IV.  Lower  Status  of 
Barbarism ;  V.  Middle  Status  of  Barbarism  ;  VI.  Upper  Status  of 
Barbarism  ;  VIL   Status  of  Civilization 3 


CHAPTER   IL 

ARTS   OF    SUBSISTENCE. 

Supremacy  of  Mankind  over  the  Earth. — Control  over  Subsistence  the 
Condition. — Mankind  alone  gained  that  Control. — Successive  Arts  of 
Subsistence — I.  Natural  Subsistence  ;  II,  Fish  Subsistence  ;  III. 
Farinaceous  Subsistence  ;  IV.  Meat  and  Milk  Subsistence  ;  V.  Unlim- 
ited Subsistence  through  Field  Agriculture. — Long  Intervals  of  Time 
between  them 19 


X  CONTENTS. 

CHAPTER    III. 

RATIO    OF    HUMAN   PROGRESS. 

Retrospect  on  the  Lines  of  Human  Progress. — Principal  Contributions  of 
Modern  Civilization. — Of  Ancient  Civilization. — Of  Later  Period  of 
Barbarism.— Of  Middle  Period.— Of  Older  Period.— Of  Period  of 
Savagery. — Humble  Condition  of  Primitive  Man. — Human  Progress 
in  a  Geometrical  Ratio. — Relative  Length  of  Ethnical  Periods. — 
Appearance  of  Semitic  and  Aryan  Families 29 


PART   II. 

GROWTH   OF   THE   IDEA   OF   GOVERNMENT. 


CHAPTER   I. 

ORGANIZATION   OF   SOCIETY  UPON   THE  BASIS   OF   SEX. 

Australian  Classes. — Organized  upon  Sex. — Archaic  Character  of  the  Organ- 
ization.— Australian  Gentes. — The  Eight  Classes. — Rule  of  Marriage. 
— Descent  in  the  Female  Line. — Stupendous  Conjugal  System. — Two 
Male  and  Two  Female  Classes  in  each  Gens. — Innovations  upon  the 
Classes. — Gens  still  Rudimentary 49 


CHAPTER   IL 

THE    IROQUOIS    GENS. 

The  Gentile  Organization. — Its  Wide  Prevalence. — Definition  of  a  Gens. 
—Descent  in  the  Female  Line  the  Archaic  Rule.— Rights,  Privileges 
and  Obligations  of  Members  of  a  Gens.— Right  of  Electing  and  De- 
posing its  Sachem  and  Chiefs.— Obligation  not  to  marry  in  the  Gens. 
— Mutual  Rights  of  Inheritance  of  the  Property  of  deceased  Members. 
— Reciprocal  Obligations  of  Help,  Defense  and  Redress  of  Injuries.— 
Right  of  Naming  its  Members.— Right  of  Adopting  Strangers  into  the 
Gens. — Common  Religious  Rites,  Query.— A  Common  Burial  Place. — 
Council  of  the  Gens.— Gentes  named  after  Animals. — Number  of  Per- 
sons in  a  Gens "- 


CONTENTS.  xi 

CHAPTER   III. 

THE   IROQUOIS    PHRATRY. 

Definition  of  a  Phratry. — Kindred  Gentes  Reunited  in  a  Higher  Organiza- 
tion.— Phratry  of  the  Iroquois  Tribes. — Its  Composition. — Its  Uses 
and  Functions. — Social  and  Religious. — Illustrations. — The  Analogue 
of  the  Grecian  Phratry  ;  but  in  its  Archaic  Form. — Phratries  of  the 
Choctas. — Of  the  Chickasas. — Of  the  Mohegans. — Of  the  Thlinkeets. 
— Their  Probable  Universality  in  the  Tribes  of  the  American  Abo- 
rigines      88 

CHAPTER   IV. 

THE    IROQUOIS   TRIBE. 

The  Tribe  as  an  Organization. — Composed  of  Gentes  Speaking  the  same 
Dialect. — Separation  in  Area  led  to  Divergence  of  Speech,  and  Seg- 
mentation.— The  Tribe  a  Natural  Growth. — Illustrations. — Attributes 
of  a  Tribe. — A  Territory  and  Name. — An  Exclusive  Dialect. — The 
Right  to  Invest  and  Depose  its  Sachems  and  Chiefs. — A  Religious 
Faith  and  Worship. — A  Council  of  Chiefs. — A  Head-Chief  of  Tribe 
in  some  Instances. — Three  successive  Forms  of  Gentile  Government : 
First,  a  Government  of  One  Power  ;  Second,  of  Two  Powers  ;  Third, 
of  Three  Powers 102 

CHAPTER   V. 

THE  IROQUOIS   CONFEDERACY. 

Confederacies  Natural  Growths. — Founded  upon  Common  Gentes,  and  a 
Common  Language. — The  Iroquois  Tribes. — Their  Settlement  in  Ne\T 
York. — Formation  of  the  Confederacy. — Its  Structure  and  Principles. 
— Fifty  Sachemships  Created. — Made  Hereditary  in  certain  Gentes. — 
Number  assigned  to  each  Tribe. — These  Sachems  formed  the  Council 
of  the  Confederacy. — The  Civil  Council. — Its  Mode  of  Transacting 
Business. — Unanimity  Necessary  to  its  Action. — The  Mourning  Coun- 
cil.— Mode  of  Raising  up  Sachems. — General  Military  Commanders. 
— This  Office  the  Germ  of  that  of  a  Chief  Executive  Magistrate. — 
Intellectual  Capacity  of  the  Iroquois 122 

CHAPTER   VI. 

GENTES   IN   OTHER   TRIBES    OF   THE   GANOWANIAN   FAMILY. 

Divisions  of  American  Aborigines. — Gentes  in  Indian  Tribes  ;  with  their 
Rules  of  Descent  and  Inheritance. — I.  Hodenosaunian  Tribes. — II. 
Dakotian. — III.  Gulf.— IV.  Pawnee. — V.  Algonkin. — VI.  Athapasco- 


xii  CONTENTS. 

Apache. — VII.  Tribes  of  North-west  Coast.  —  Eskimos,  a  Distinct 
Family. — VIII.  Salish,  Sahaptin,  and  Kootenay  Tribes. — IX.  Sho- 
shonee. — X,  Village  Indians  of  New  Mexico,  Mexico  and  Central 
America. — XI.  South  American  Indian  Tribes. —  Probable  Univer- 
sality of  the  Organization  in  Gentes  in  the  Ganowanian  Family 151 

CHAPTER   VII. 

THE   AZTEC    CONFEDERACY. 

Misconception  of  Aztec  Society. — Condition  of  Advancement. — Nahuatlac 
Tribes. — Their  Settlement  in  Mexico. — Pueblo  of  Mexico  founded, 
A.D.  1325. — Aztec  Confederacy  established,  A.D.  1426. — Extent  of 
Territorial  Domination. — Probable  Number  of  the  People. — Whether 
or  not  the  Aztecs  were  organized  in  Gentes  and  Phratries. — The 
Council  of  Chiefs. — Its  probable  Functions. — Office  held  by  Monte- 
zuma.— Elective  in  Tenure. — Deposition  of  Montezuma. — Probable 
Functions  of  the  Office. — Aztec  Institutions  essentially  Democratical. 
— The  Government  a  Military  Democracy 186 

CHAPTER   VIII. 

THE     GRECIAN    GENS. 

Early  Condition  of  Grecian  Tribes. — Organized  into  Gentes. — Changes  in 
the  Character  of  *the  Gens. — Necessity  for  a  Political  System. — Prob- 
lem to  be  Solved. — The  Formatioii  of  a  State. — Grote's  Description 
of  the  Grecian  Gentes. — Of  their  Phratries  and  Tribes. — Rights,  Privi- 
leges and  Obligations  of  the  Members  of  the  Gens. — Similar  to  those 
of  the  Iroquois  Gens.— The  Office  of  Chief  of  the  Gens. — Whether 
Elective  or  Hereditary. — The  Gens  the  Basis  of  the  Social  System. — 
Antiquity  of  the  Gentile  Lineage. — Inheritance  of  Property. — Archaic 
and  Final  Rule. — Relationships  between  the  Members  of  a  Gens. — 
The  Gens  the  Center  of  Social  and  Religious  Influence 215 

CHAPTER    IX. 

THE   GRECIAN    PHRATRY,   TRIBE   AND    NATION. 

The  Athenian  Phratry. — How  Formed, — Definition  of  Dikaearchus.— Ob- 
jects chiefly  Religious. — The  Phratriarch. — The  Tribe. — Composed 
of  Three  Phratries. — The  Phylo  Basileus. — The  Nation. — Composed 
of  Four  Tribes.  — Boule,  or  Council  of  Chiefs. — Agora,  or  Assembly  of 
the  People. — The  Basileus. — Tenure  of  the  Office. —  Military  and 
Priestly  Functions. — Civil  Functions  not  shown. — Governments  of  the 
Heroic  Age,  Military  Democracies. — Aristotle's  Definition  of  a  Basil- 
eus.— Later  Athenian  Democracy. — Inherited  from  the  Gentes. — Its 
Powerful  Influence  upon  Athenian  Development 235 


CONTENTS.  xiii 

CHAPTER   X. 

THE    INSTITUTION    OF   GRECIAN   POLITICAL   SOCIETY. 

Failure  of  the  Gentes  as  a  Basis  of  Government. — Legislation  of  Theseus. 
— Attempted  Substitution  of  Classes. — Its  Failure. — Abolition  of  the 
Office  of  Basileus. — The  Archonship. — Naucraries  and  Trittyes. — 
Legislation  of  Solon. — The  Property  Classes. — Partial  Transfer  of 
Civil  Power  from  the  Gentes  to  the  Classes. — Persons  unattached  to 
any  Gens. — Made  Citizens. — The  Senate. — The  Ecclesia. — Political 
Society  partially  attained. — Legislation  of  Cleisthenes. — Institution 
of  Political  Society. — The  Attic  Deme  or  Township. — Its  Organiza- 
•  tion  and  Powers. — Its  Local  Self-government. — The  Local  Tribe  or 
District. — The  Attic  Commonwealth. — Athenian  Democracy 25G 


CHAPTER   XL 

THE   ROMAN    GENS. 

Italian  Tribes  Organized  in  Gentes. — Founding  of  Rome. — Tribes  Organ- 
ized into  a  Military  Democracy. — The  Roman  Gens. — Definition  of 
a  Gentilis  by  Cicero. — By  Festus. — By  Varro. — Descent  in  Male  Line. 
— Marrying  out  of  the  Gens. — Rights,  Privileges  and  Obligations  of 
the  Members  of  a  Gens. — Democratic  Constitution  of  Ancient  Latin 
Society. — Number  of  Persons  in  a  Gens 277 

CHAPTER    XII. 

THE   ROMAN    CURIA,    TRIBE   AND   POPULUS. 

Roman  Gentile  Society. — Four  Stages  of  Organization. — i.  The  Gens  ; 
2.  The  Curia,  consisting  of  TenGentes  ;  3.  The  Tribe,  composed  of 
Ten  Curiae  ;  4.  The  Populus  Romanus,  composed  of  Three  Tribes. — 
Numerical  Proportions. — How  Produced. — Concentration  of  Gentes 
at  Rome. — The  Roman  Senate. — Its  Functions. — The  Assembly  of 
the  People. — Its  Powers. — The  People  Sovereign. — Office  of  Military 
Commander  (Rex). — Its  Powers  and  Functions. — Roman  Gentile  In- 
stitutions essentially  Democratical 300 


CHAPTER    XIII. 

THE  INSTITUTION   OF   ROMAN   POLITICAL  SOCIETY. 

The  Populus. — The  Plebeians. — The  Clients. — The  Patricians.— Limits  of 
the  Order. — Legislation  of  Servius  Tullius. — Institution  of  Property 
Classes. — Of  the  Centuries. — Unequal  Suffrage. — Comitia  Centuriata. 


xiv  CONTENTS. 

— Supersedes  Comitia  Curiata. — Classes  supersede  the  Gentes. — The 
Census.  —  Plebeians  made  Citizens.  —  Institution  of  City  Wards. 
— Of  Country  Townships. — Tribes  increased  to  Four. — Made  Local 
instead  of  Consanguine. — Character  of  New  Political  System. — De- 
cline and  Disappearance  of  Genlile  Organization. — The  Work  it 
Accomplished 323 


CHAPTER    XIV. 

CHANGE   OF   DESCENT   FROM   THE    FEMALE   TO   THE   MALE   LINE. 

How  the  Change  might  have  been  made. — Inheritance  of  Property  the 
Motive. — Descent  in  the  Female  Line  among  the  Lycians. — The  Cre- 
tans.— The  Etruscans. — Probably  among  the  Athenians  in  the  time  of 
Cecrops. — The  Plundred  Families  of  the  Locrians. — Evidence  from 
Marriages.  —  Turanian  System  of  Consanguinity  among  Grecian 
Tribes. — Legend  of  the  Danaidae 343 

CHAPTER    XV. 

GENTES    IN    OTHER   TRIBES    OF   THE   HUMAN    FAMILY. 

The  Scottish  Clan. — The  Irish  Sept. — Germanic  Tribes. — Traces  of  a  prior 
Gentile  System. — Gentes  in  Southern  Asiatic  Tribes. — In  Northern. — 
In  Uralian  Tribes. — Hundred  Families  of  Chinese.- — Hebrew  Tribes. 
— Composed  of  Gentes  and  Phratries  Apparently. — Gentes  in  African 
Tribes. — In  Australian  Tribes. — Subdivisions  of  Fejees  and  Rewas. — 
Wide  Distribution  of  Gentile  Organization 357 


PART  III. 

GROWTH    OF    THE   IDEA    OF    THE   FAMILY. 


CHAPTER    I. 

THE   ANCIENT    FAMILY. 

Five  successive  Forms  of  the  Family. — First,  tlie  Consanguine  Family. — It 
created  the  Malayan  System  of  Consanguinity  and  Affinity. — Second, 
the  Punaluan. — It  created  the  Turanian  and  Ganowanian  System. — 
Third,  the  Monogamian. — It  created  the  Aryan,  .Semitic,  and  Uralian 
System. — Tiie  .Syndyasmian  and  Patriarchal  Families  Intermediate. — 


/ 


CONTENTS.  ■  XV 

Both  failed  to  create  a  System  of  Consanguinity. — These  Systems 
Natural  Growths. — Two  Ultimate  Forms. — One  Classificatory,  the 
other  Descriptive. — General  Principles  of  these  Systems. — Their  Per- 
sistent Maintenance 383 

CHAPTER   II. 

THE   CONSANGUINE   FAMILY. 

Former  Existence  of  this  Family. — Proved  by  Malayan  System  of  Con- 
sanguinity.— Hawaiian  System  used  as  Typical. — Five  Grades  of 
Relations. — Details  of  System. — Explained  in  its  origin  by  the  Inter- 
marriage of  Brothers  and  Sisters  in  a  Group. — Early  State  of  Society 
in  the  Sandwich  Islands. — Nine  Grades  of  Relations  of  the  Chinese. 
— Identical  in  Principle  with  the  Hawaiian. — Five  Grades  of  Rela- 
tions in  Ideal  Republic  of  Plato. — Table  of  Malayan  System  of  Con- 
sanguinity and  Affinity 401 

CHAPTER    III. 

THE    PUNALUAN    FAMILY. 

The  Punaluan  Family  supervened  upon  the  Consanguine. — Transition, 
how  Produced. — Hawaiian  Custom  of  Punalua. — Its  probable  ancient 
Prevalence  over  wide  Areas. — The  Gentes  originated  probably  in 
I  Punaluan  Groups. — The  Turanian  System  of  Consanguinity. — Created 
by  the  Punaluan  Family. — It  proves  the  Existence  of  this  Family  when 
the  System  was  formed. — Details  of  System. — Explanation  of  its 
Relationships  in  their  Origin. — Table  of  Turanian  and  Ganowanian 
Systems  of  Consanguinity  and  Affinity  424 

CHAPTER  IV. 

THE    SYNDYASMIAN   AND   THE    PATRIARCHAL   FAMILIES. 

The  Syndyasmian  Family. — How  Constituted. — Its  Characteristics. — Influ- 
ence upon  it  of  the  Gentile  Organization. — Propensity  to  Pair  a  late 
Development. — Ancient  Society  should  be  Studied  where  the  highest 
Exemplifications  are  found. — The  Patriarchal  Family. — Paternal  Power 
its  Essential  Characteristic. — Polygamy  subordinate. — The  Roman 
■    Family  similar. — Paternal  Power  unknown  in  previous  Families 453 

CHAPTER  V. 

THE  MONOGAMIAN  FAMILY. 

This  Family  comparatively  Modern. — The  Term  Familia. — Family  of  An- 
cient Germans. — Of  Homeric  Greeks. — Of  Civilized  Greeks. — Seclu- 
sion of  Wives. — Obligations  of  Monogamy  not  respected  by  the  Males. 


Xvi  CONTENTS. 

— The  Roman  Family. — Wives  under  Tower. — Aryan  System  of  Con- 
sanguinity.— It  came  in  under  Monogamy. — Previous  System  probably 
Turanian. — Transition  from  Turanian  into  Aryan. — Roman  and  Ara- 
bic Systems  of  Consanguinity. — Details  of  the  Former. — Present  Mo- 
nogamian  Family. — Table  of  Roman  and  Arabic  Systems 468 

CHAPTER  VI. 

SEQUENCE   OF    INSTITUTIONS    CONNECTED    WITH    THE   FAMILY. 

Sequence  in  part  Hypothetical. — Relation  of  these  Institutions  in  the  Order 
of  their  Origination. — Evidence  of  their  Origination  in  the  Order 
named. — Hypothesis  of  Degradation  Considered. — The  Antiquity  of 
Mankind 408 


PART  IV. 

GROWTH  OF  THE  IDEA  OF  PROPERTY. 


CHAPTER  I. 

THE  THREE    RULES   OF   INHERITANCE. 

Property  in  the  Status  of  Savagery. — Slow  Rate  of  Progress. — First  Rule 
of  Inheritance. — Property  Distributed  among  the  Gentiles. — Property 
in  the  Lower  Status  of  Barbarism. — Germ  of  Second  Rule  of  Inherit- 
ance.— Distributed  among  Agnatic  Kindred. — Improved  Character  of 
Man. — Property  in  Middle  Status. — Rule  of  Inheritance  imperfectly 
Known. — Agnatic  Inheritance  Probable 523 

CHAPTER  II. 

THE   THREE   RULES   OF   INHERITANCE — CONTINUED. 

Property  in  the  Upper  Status  of  Barbarism.— Slavery. — Tenure  of  Lands 
in  Grecian  Tribes. — Culture  of  the  Period. — Its  Brilliancy. — Third 
Rule  of  Inheritance. — Exclusively  in  Children. — Hebrew  Tribes. — 
Rule  of  Inheritance. — Daughters  of  Zelophehad. — Property  remained 
in  the  Phratry,  and  probably  in  the  Gens. — The  Reversion. — Athenian 
Inheritance. — Exclusively  in  Children. — The  Reversion. — Inheritance 
remained  in  the  Gens. — Heiresses. — Wills. —  Roman  Inheritance. — 
The  Reversion. — Property  remained  in  the  Gens. — Appearance  of  Aris- 
tocracy.— Property  Career  of  the  Human  Race. — Unity  of  Origin  of 
Mankind 537 


PART    I. 

GROWTH    OF    INTELLIGENCE    THROUGH    INVEN- 
TIONS AND  DISCOVERIES. 


ANCIENT   SOCIETY 


CHAPTER  I. 

ETHNICAL   PERIODS. 

Progress  of  Mankind  from  the  Bottom  of  the  Scale. — Illustrated 
BY  Inventions  Discoveries  and  Institutions. — Two  Plans  of  Govern- 
ment— ONE  Gentile  and  Social,  giving  a  Society,  {Societal);  the  other 
Political,  giving  a  State,  {Civitas). — The  former  founded  upon  Persons 
AND  Gentilism  ;  the  latter  upon  Territory  and  Property. — The  First, 
the  Plan  of  Government  of  Ancient  Society. — The  Second,  that  of 
Modern  or  Civilized  Society. — Uniformity  of  Human  Experience. — 
Proposed  Ethnical  Periods — I.  Lower  Status  of  Savagery  ;  II.  Middle 
Status  of  Savagery ;  III.  Upper  Status  of  Savagery;  IV.  Lower  Status 
OF  Barbarism;  V.  Middle  Status  of  Barbarism;  VI.  Upper  Status  of 
Barbarism;  VIL  Status  of  Civilization. 

The  latest  investigations  respecting  the  early  condition  of 
the  human  race,  are  tending  to  the  conclusion  that  mankind 
commenced  their  career  at  the  bottom  of  the  scale  and 
worked  their  way  up  from  savagery  to  civilization  through 
the  slow  accumulations  of  experimental  knowledge. 

Aq  \\  k  -uadeniahle  that_  portions  of  the  human  farnily 
have  existed  in  a  state  of  savagery,  other  portions  in  a  state 
oT"~Earbarisjii.  and  still  other  portions^in  a  stcite  of  ci\iliza- 
\\onj^jXr'-^%%ii^^^^^^Q^^'^^^^^^r^2it  these  three  distinct  conditions 
are  connected  wijh,,^each  other  in  a  natural  as  well  as  neces- 
sary sequence— of -progress.  Moreover,  that  this  sequence 
has  been  historically  true  of  the  entire  human  family,  up  to 


4  ANCIENT  SOCIETY. 

the  status  attained  by  each  branch  respectively,  is  rendered 
probable  by  the  conditions  under  which  all  progress  occurs, 
and  by  the  known  advancement  of  several  branches  of  the 
family  through  two  or  more  of  these  conditions. 

An  attempt  will  be  made  in  the  following  pages  to  bring 
forward  additional  evidence  of  the  rudeness  of  the  early 
condition  of  mankind,  of  the  gradual  evolution  of  their  men-, 
tal  and  moral  powers  through  experience,  and  of  their  pro- 
tracted struggle  with  opposing  obstacles  while  winning  their 
way  to  civilization.  It  will  be  drawn,  in  part,  from  the 
great  sequence  of  inventions  and  discoveries  which  stretches 
along  the  entire  pathway  of  human  progress;  but  chiefly 
from  domestic  institutions,  which  express  the  growth  of  certain 
ideas  and  passions. 

As  we  re-ascend  along  the  several  lines  of  progress  toward 
the  primitive  ages  of  mankind,  and  eliminate  one  after  the 
other,  in  the  order  in  which  they  appeared,  inventions  and 
discoveries  on  the  one  hand,  and  institutions  on  the  other, 
we  are  enabled  to  perceive  that  the  former  stand  to  each 
other  in  progressive,  and  the  latter  in  unfolding  relations. 
While  the  former  class  have  had  a  connection,  more  or  less 
direct,  the  latter  have  been  developed  from  a  few  primary 
germs  of  thought.  Modern  institutions  plant__theko-oots  in 
the  period  of  barbarism,  into  which  their  germs  were  trans- 
mitted from  the  previous  period  of  sayagery.  They "  Kave 
had  a  lineal  descent  through  the  ages,  with  the  streams  of 
the  blood,  as  well  as  a  logical  development. 

Two  independent  lines  of  investigation  thus  invite  our 
attention.  Tlie^_ojie^eads  through  inventions  and  discov- 
eries, and  -the  other  through  prlrriary'  institutions.  With  the 
knowledge  gained  therefrom,  we  may  hope  to  indicate  the 
principal  stages  of  human  development.'^  The  proofs  to  be 
adduced  will  be  drawn  chiefly  from  domestic  institutions; 
the  references  to  achievements  more  strictly  intellectual  being 
general  as  well  as  subordinate. 

The  facts  indicate  the  gradual  formation  and  subsequent 
development  of  certain  ideas,  passions,  and  aspirations.  Those 
which  hold  the  most  prominent  positions  may  be  generaUzdd 


ETHNICAL  PERIODS. 


5 


as  growths  of  the  particular  ideas  with  which  they  severally 
stand  connected.  Apart  from  inventions  and  discoveries  they 
are  the  following: 

I.   Subsistence,  V.   Religion, 

II.    Government,  VI.  House  Life  and  ArcJii- 

III.  Language,  teeture, 

IV.  The  Family,  VII.  Property. 

First.  Subsistence  has  been  Increased  and  perfected  by 
a  series  of  successive  arts,  introduced  at  long  intervals  of 
time,  and  connected  more  or  less  directly  with  inventions 
and  discoveries. 

Second.  The  germ,.^  government  must  be  sought  in  the 
organization  intq^^^ntes^n  the  Status  of  savagery;  and  fol- 
lowed down,  through  the  advancing  forms  of  this  institu- 
tion, to  the  establishment  of  political  society. 

Third.  Human  speecli  seems  to  have  been  developed 
from  the  rudest  and  simplest  forms  of  expression.  Gesture 
or  sign  language,  as  intimated  by  Lucretius,^  must  have  pre- 
ceded articulate  language,  as  thought  preceded  speech.  The 
monosyllabical  preceded  the  syllabical,  as  the  latter  did 
that  of  concrete  words.  Human  intelligence,  unconscious 
of  design,  evolved  articulate  language  by  utilizing  the  vocal 
sounds.  This  great  subject,  a  department  of  knowledge  by 
itself,  does  not  fall  within  the  scope  of  the  present  investigation. 
Fourth.  With  respect  to  the  farnily,  the  stages  of  its  growth 
are  embodied  iri  systems_oj^consang_uinity^nd  affinityj^  and^in 
usages  relating  to  marriage,  by  means  of  which,  collectively, 
theTamily  can  be  dehnitely  traced  thrb"ugli  several  successive 
forms.  '^"••^-'".«, 

Fifth.  The  growth  of  religious  ideas  is  environed  with  such 
intrinsic  difficulties  that  it  may  never  receive  a  perfectly  satis- 
factory exposition.  Religion  deals  so  largely  with  the  imagina- 
tive and  emotional  nature,  and  consequently  with  such  uncer- 
tain elements   of  knowledge,  that   all  primitive    religions    are 

'  Et  pueros  commendarunt  mulierbreque  saeclum 
Vocibus,  et  gestu,  cum  balbe  significarent, 
Imbecillorum  esse  aequm  miserier  omnium. 

— De  Rertim  N'attim,  lib.  v,  1020. 


6  ANCIENT  SOCIETY. 

grotesque  and  to  some  extent  unintelligible.  This  subject  also 
falls  without  the  plan  of  this  work  excepting  as  it  may  prompt 
incidental  suggestions. 

Sixth.  House  architecture,  which  connects  itself  with  the 
form  of  the  family  and  the  plan  of  domestic  life,  affords  a  tol- 
erably complete  illustration  of  progress  from  savagery  to  civili- 
zation. Its  growth  can  be  traced  from  the  hut  of  the  savage, ' 
through  the  communal  houses  of  the  barbarians,  to  the  house 
of  the  single  family  of  civilized  nations,  with  all  the  successive 
links  by  which  one  extreme  is  connected  with  the  other.  This 
subject  will  be  noticed  incidentally. 

^-  Lastly.  The  idea  of  property  was  slowly  formed  in  the 
human  mind,  remaining  nascent  and  feeble  through  immense 
periods  of  time.  Springing  into  life  in  savagery,  it  required  all 
the  experience  of  this  period  and  of  the  subsequent  period  of 
barbarism  to  develop  the  germ,  and  to  prepare  the  human 
brain  for  the  acceptance  of  its  controlling  influence.  Its  domi- 
nance as  a  passion  over  all  other  passions  marks  the  commence- 
ment of  civilization.  It  not  only  led  mankind  to  overcome  the 
obstacles  which  delayed  civilization,  but  to  establish  political 
society  on  the  basis  of  territory  and  of  property.  A  critical 
knowledge  of  the  evolution  of  the  idea  of  property  would  em- 
body, in  some  respects,  the  most  remarkable  portion  of  the 
mental  history  of  mankind. 

It  will  be  my  object  to  present  some  evidence  of  human  prog- 
ress along  these  several  lines,  and  through  successive  ethnical 
periods,  as  it  is  revealed  by  inventions  and  discoveries,  and  by 
the  growth  of  the  ideas  of  government,  of  the  family,  and  of 
property.  \ 

j^—  It  may  be  here  premised  that  all  forms  of  government  are 
reducible  to  two  general  plans,  using  the  word  plan  ''n  its  sci- 
entific sense.  In  their  bases  the  two  are  fundamentally  distinct. 
The  first,  in  the  order  of  time,  is  founded  upon  persons,  and 
upon  relations  purely  personal,  and  may  be  distinguished  as  a 
fSociet^ (societas).  The  gens  is  the  unit  of  this  organization; 
givmg  as  the  successive__£lages  of  integratioij,  in  the  archaic 
period,  thergens]\the  ^hratry)-t!ie"triS'fi,  and  tlie^onfederacy  of  . 
tribes,  which  constitutecTa  people  "oi^  nation  (popiiTiis).     At  a 


ETHNICAL  PERIODS. 


later  period  a  coalescence  of  tribes  in  the  same  area  into  a  na- 
tion took  the  place  of  a  confederacy  of  tribes  occupying  inde- 
pendent areas.  Such,  through  prolonged  ages,  after  the  gens 
appeared,  was  the  substantially  universal  organization  of  an- 
cient society;  and  it  remained  among  the  Greeks  and  Romans 
after  civilization  supervened.  The  second  is  founded  upon  ter- 
ritory and  upon  property,  and  may  be  distinguished  as  a  state 
(civitas).  The  township  or  ward,  circumscribed  by  metes  and 
bounds,  with  the  property  it  contains,  is  the  basis  or  unit  of  the 
latter,  and  political  society  is  the  result.  Political  society  is 
orsfanized  upon   territorial  areas,  and   deals   wllh  property  as 

relations. 


as^xnttt— persotts-^h ro  u glt-territaFiarTelatio ns.  The  suc-- 
cessiv?^lrtagcs-T3f4nte^rati©H-^re'thenf6wnih'ip  or  ward,  which 
is  the  unit  of  organization;  the  county  or  province,  which  is  an 
aggregation  of  townships  or  wards ;  and  the  national  domain 
or  territory,  which  is  an  aggregation  of  counties  or  provinces ; 
the  people  of  each  of  which  are  organized  into  a  body  politic. 
It  taxed  the  Greeks  and  Romans  to  the  extent  of  their  capaci- 
ties, after  they  had  gained  civilization,  to  invent  the  deme  or 
township  and  the  city  ward ;  and  thus  inaugurate  the  second 
great  plan  of  government,  which  remains  among  civilized 
nations  to  the  present  hour.  In  ancient  society  this  territorial 
plan  was  unknown.  When  it  camenTir'filJCTi^he  Boundary 
line  between  ancTehl;  and  modern  society,  as  the  distinction  will 
be  recognized  in  these  pages. 

It  may  be  further  observed  that  the  domestic  institutions  of 
the  barbarous,  and  even  of  the  savage  ancestors  of  mankind, 
are  still  exemplified  in  portions  of  the  human  family  with  such 
completeness  that,  with  the  exception  of  the  strictly  primitive 
period,  the  several  stages  of  this  progress  are  tolerably  well 
preserved.  They  are  seen  in  the  organization  of  society  upon 
the  basis  of  sex,  then  upon  the  basis  of  kin,  and  finally  upon 
the  basis  of  territory  ;  through  the  successive  forms  of  mayria.o-e 
and  of  the  family,  with  the  systems  of  consanguinity  thereby 
created  ;  th£Ough_houseJife_jnd  arr.hTFecture  : '  and  tlirough 
progress  in  usages  with  "respect  to  the  ownership  and  inherit- 
ance of  property. 

The  theory  of  human  degradation  to  explain  the  existence 


8  ANCIENT  SOCIETY. 

of  savages  and  of  barbarians  is  no  longer  tenable.  It  came 
in  as  a  corollary  from  the  Mosaic  cosmogony,  and  was  acqui- 
esced in  from  a  supposed  necessity  which  no  longer  exists.  As 
a  theory,  it  is  not  only  incapable  of  explaining  the  existence 
of  savages,  but  it  is  without  support  in  the  facts  of  human  ex- 
perience. 

The  remote  ancestors  of  the  Aryan  nations  presumptively 
passed  through  an  experience  similar  to  that  of  existing  bar- 
barous and  savage  tribes.  Though  the  experience  of  these 
nations  embodies  all  the  information  necessary  to  illustrate  the 
periods  of  civilization,  both  ancient  and  modern,  together  with 
a  part  of  that  in  the  Later  period  of  barbarism,  their  anterior 
experience  must  be  deduced,  in  the  main,  from  the  traceable 
connection  between  the  elements  of  their  existing  institutions 
and  inventions,  and  similar  elements  still  preserved  in  those  of 
savage  and  barbarous  tribes. 

It  may  bej'emarked  finally  that  the  experience  of  niajikind 
has  run  in  nearly  uniform  channels;  that  human~Tiecessitie5^  in 
similar_.conditions  liave  been  Substantially  the  same;  and  that 
ihe_Qperations  of  the  mental  principle  have  been  uniform  i.a_ 
virtue  of  the  specific  identity  of  the  brain  of  all  the  races  of 
mankind.  This,  however,  is  but  a  part  of  the  explanation  of 
uniformity  in  results.  The  germs  of  the  principal  institutions 
and  arts  of  life  were  developed  while  man  was  still  a  savage. 
To  a  very  great  extent  the  experience  of  the  subsequent 
periods  of  barbarism  and  of  civilization  have  been  expended  in 
the  further  developmeni  oTlhese  original  conceptions.  Wher- 
ever a  connection  can  be  traced  on  different  continents  between 
a  present  institution  and  a  common  germ,  the  derivation  of  the 
people  themselves  from  a  common  original  stock  is  implied. 

The  discussion  oTTliese  several  classes  of  facts  will  be  facili- 
tated by  the  establishment  of  a  certain  number  of  Ethnical 
Periods ;  each  representing  a  distinct  condition  of  society,  and 
distinguishable  by  a  mode  of  life  peculiar  to  itself  The  terms 
"Age  of  Stone,''  "of  Bronze^'  and  "of  Iron,''  introduced  by 
Danish  archaeologists,  have  been  extremely  useful  for  certain 
purposes,  and  will  remain  so  for  the  classification  of  objects 
of  ancient  art;   but  the  progress  of  knowledge  has  rendered 


'      Ji^^~^*^^  ETHNICAL  PERIODS.  9 

Other  and  dififerent  subdivisions  necessary.  Stone  implements 
were  not  entirely  laid  aside  with  the  introduction  of  tools  of 
iron,  nor  of  those  of  bronze.  The  invention  of  the  process  of 
smelting  iron  ore  created  an  ethnical  epoch,  yet  we  could 
scarcely  date  another  from  the  production  of  bronze.  More- 
over, since  the  period  of  stone  implements  overlaps  those  of 
bronze  and  of  iron,  and  since  that  of  bronze  also  overlaps  that 
of  iron,  they  are  not  capable  of  a  circumscription  that  would 
leave  each  independent  and  distinct. 

It  is  probable  that  the  successive  arts  of  subsistence  which 
arose  at  long  intervals  will  ultimately,  from  the  great  influence 
they  must  have  exercised  upon  the  condition  of  mankind, 
afford  the  most  satisfactory  bases  for  these  divisions.  But  in- 
vestigation has  not  been  carried  far  enough  in  this  direction  to 
yield  the  necessary  information.  With  our  present  knowledge 
the  main  result  can  be  attained  by  selecting  such  other  inven- 
tions or  discoveries  as  will  afford  sufficient  tests  of  progress  to 
characterize  the  commencement  of  successive  ethnical  periods. 
Even  though  accepted  as  provisional,  these  periods  will  be 
found  convenient  and  useful.  Each  of  those  about  to  be  pro- 
posed will  be  found  to  cover  a  distinct  culture,  and  to  represent 
a  particular  mode  of  life. 

The  period  of  savagery,  of  the  early  part  of  which  very 
little  is  known,  may  be  divided,  provisionally,  into  three  sub- 
periods.  These  may  be  named  respectively  the  Older,  the 
Middle,  and  the  Later  period  of  savagery ;  and  the  condition 
of  society  in  each,  respectively,  may  be  distinguished  as  the 
Lower,  the  Middle,  and  the  Upper  Status  of  savagery. 

In  like  manner,  the  period  of  barbarism  divides  naturally  into 
three  sub-periods,  which  will  be  called,  respectively,  the  Older, 
the  Middle,  and  the  Later  period  of  barbarism;  and  the  con- 
dition of  society  in  each,  respectively,  will  be  distinguished  as 
the  Lower,  the  Middle,  and  the  Upper  Status  of  barbarism. 

It  is  difficult,  if  not  impossible,  to  find  such  tests  of  progress 
to  mark  the  commencement  of  these  several  periods  as  will  be 
found  absolute  in  their  application,  and  without  exceptions 
upon  all  the  continents.  Neither  is  it  necessary,  for  the  pur- 
pose in  hand,  that  exceptions  should  not  exist.     It  will  be 


JO  ANCIENT  SOCIETY. 

sufficient  if  the  principal  tribes  of  mankind  can  be  classified, 
according  to  the  degree  of  their  relative  progress,  into  con- 
ditions which  can  be  recognized  as  distinct. 

I.  Loiver  Status  of  Savagery,. 

This  period  commenced  with  the  infancy  of  the  human  race, 
and  may  be  said  to  have  ended  with  the  acquisition  of  a  fish 
subsistence  and  of  a  knowledge  of  the  use  of  fire.  Mankind 
were  then  living  in  their  original  restricted  habitat,  and  subsist- 
ing upon  fruits  and  nuts.  The  commencement  of  articulate 
speech  belongs  to  this  period.  No  exemplification  of  tribes  of 
mankind  in  this  condition  remained  to  the  historical  period. 

II.  Middle  Status  of  Savagery. 

It  commenced  with  the  acquisition  of  a  fish  subsistence  and  a 
knowledge  of  the  use  of  fire,  and  ended  with  the  invention  of 
the  bow  and  arrow.  Mankind,  while  in  this  condition,  spread 
from  their  original  habitat  over  the  greater  portion  of  the  earth's 
surface.  Among  tribes  still  existing  it  will  leave  in  the  Middle 
Status  of  savagery,  for  example,  the  Australians  and  the  greater 
part  of  the  Polynesians  when  discovered.  It  will  be  sufficient 
to  give  one  or  more  exemplifications  of  each  status. 

III.  Upper  Status  of  Savagery. 

It  commenced  with  the  invention  of  the  bow  and  arrow,  and 
ended  with  the  invention  of  the  art  of  pottery.  It  leaves  in  the 
Upper  Status  of  Savagery  the  Athapascan  tribes  of  the  Hud- 
son's Bay  Territory,  the  tribes  of  the  valley  of  the  Columbia, 
and  certain  coast  tribes  of  North  and  South  America;  but 
with  relation  to  the  time  of  their  discovery.  This  closes  the 
period  of  Savagery. 

IV.  Lozuer  Status  of  Barbarism. 

The  invention  or  practice  of  the  art  of  pottery,  all  things 
considered,  is  probably  the  most  effective  and  conclusive  test 
that  can  be  selected  to  fix  a  boundary  line,  necessarily  arbi- 
trary, between  savagery  and  barbarism.  The  distinctness  of 
the  two  conditions  has  long  been  recognized,  but  no  criterion  of 
progress  out  of  the  former  into  the  latter  has  hitherto  been 
brought  forward.  All  such  tribes,  then,  as  never  attained  to 
the  art  of  pottery  will  be  classed  as  savages,  and  those  possess- 
ing this  art  but  who  never  attained  a  phonetic  alphabet  and 
the  use  of  writing  will  be  classed  as  barbarians. 


ETHNICAL  PERIODS.  1 1 

The  first  sub-period  of  barbarism  commenced  with  the  man- 
ufticture  of  pottery,  whether  by  original  invention  or  adoption. 
In  finding  its  termination,  and  the  commencement  of  the 
Middle  Status,  a  difficulty  is  encountered  in  the  unequal  endow- 
ments of  the  two  hemispheres,  which  began  to  be  influential 
upon  human  afiairs  after  the  period  of  savagery  had  passed. 
It  may  be  met,  however,  by  the  adoption  of  equivalents.  In 
the  Eastern  hemisphere,  the  domestication  of  animals,  and  in 
the  Western,  the  cultivation  of  maize  and  plants  by  irrigation, 
together  with  the  use  of  adobe-brick  and  stone  in  house  build- 
ing have  been  selected  as  sufficient  evidence  of  progress  to 
work  a  transition  out  of  the  Lower  and  into  the  Middle  Status 
of  barbarism.  It  leaves,  for  example,  in  the  Lower  Status,  the 
Indian  tribes  of  the  United  States  east  of  the  Missouri  River, 
and  such  tribes  of  Europe  and  Asia  as  practiced  the  art  of  pot- 
tery, but  were  without  domestic  animals. 

V.  Middle  Status  of  Barbarism. 

It  commenced  with  the  domestication  of  animals  in  the  East- 
ern hemisphere,  and  in  the  Western  with  cultivation  by  irriga- 
tion and  with  the  use  of  adobe-brick  and  stone  in  architecture, 
as  shown.  Its  termination  may  be  fixed  with  the  invention  of 
the  process  of  smelting  iron  ore.  This  places  in  the  Middle 
Status,  for  example,  the  Village  Indians  of  New  Mexico,  Mexico, 
Central  America  and  Peru,  and  such  tribes  in  the  Eastern 
hemisphere  as  possessed  domestic  animals,  but  were  without  a 
knowledge  of  iron.  The  ancient  Britons,  although  familiar 
with  the  use  of  iron,  fairly  belong  in  this  connection.  The 
vicinity  of  more  advanced  continental  tribes  had  advanced  the 
arts  of  life  among  them  far  beyond  the  state  of  development 
of  their  domestic  institutions. 

VI.  Upper  Status  of  Barbarism. 

It  commenced  with  the  manufacture  of  iron,  and  ended  with 
the  invention  of  a  phonetic  alphabet,  and  the  use  of  writing  in 
literary  composition.  Here  civilization  begins.  This  leaves 
in  the  Upper  Status,  for  example,  the  Grecian  tribes  of  the 
Homeric  age,  the  Italian  tribes  shortly  before  the  founding  of 
Rome,  and  the  Germanic  tribes  of  the  time  of  Caesar. 


12  ANCIENT  SOCIETY. 

VII.   Status  of  CivilizatioJi. 

It  commenced,  as  stated,  with  the  use  of  a  phonetic  alphabet 
and  the  production  of  literary  records,  and  divides  into  Ancieiit 
and  Modern.  As  an  equivalent,  hieroglyphical  writing  upon 
stone  may  be  admitted. 

RECAPITULATION. 

Periods.  Conditions. 

I..  Older  Period  of  Savagery,      I.  Loivcr  Status  of  Savagery, 

II.  Middle  Period  of  Savagery,  II.  Middle  Status  of  Savagery, 

III.  Later  Period  of  Savage jy,  III.  Upper  Status  of  Savagery, 

IV.  Older  Period  of  Barbar-  IV.  Lozvcr  Status  of  Barbar- 

ism, ism, 

V.  Middle  Period  of  Barbar-    V.  Middle  Status  of  Barbar- 

ism, ism, 

VI.  Later  Period  of  Barbarism,  VI.  Upper  Status  of  Barbarism^ 
VII.  Status  of  Civilization. 

I.  Loiver  Status  of  Savagery,  From  the  Infancy  of  the  Hu- 
man Raee  to  the  commence- 
ment of  the  next  Period. 

II.  Middle  Status  of  Savagery,  From  the  acquisition  of  a  fish 

subsistence  and  a  knowledge 
of  the  use  of  fire,  to  etc, 

III.  Upper  Status  of  Savagery,    From    the   Invention  of  the 

Boiv  and  A  rrotv,  to  etc. 

IV.  Lower  Status  of  Barbarism,  From  the  Invention  of  the 

Art  of  Pottery,  to  etc. 
V.  Middle  Status  of  Barbarism,  From  the  Domestication  of 

animals  on  the  Eastern  hemi- 
sphere, and  in  the  Western 
from  the  cultivation  of  maize 
and p  la  Jits  by  Irrigation,  with 
the  use  of  adobe -brick  and 
stone,  to  etc. 

VI.  Upper  Status  of  Barbarism,  From  the  Invention  of  the 

process  of  Smelting  Iron  Ore, 
with  the  use  of  iron  tools,  to 
etc. 


ETHNICAL  PERIODS 


13 


VII.  Status  of  Civili.zation,  From  the  Invention  of  a  Phonetic 

Alphabet,    with   the    use   of 
luriting,  to  the  present  time. 

Each  of  these  periods  has  a  disthict  culture  and  exhibits  a 
mode  of  life  more  or  less  special  and  peculiar  to  itself.  This 
specialization  of  ethnical  periods  renders  it  possible  to  treat  a 
particular  society  according  to  its  condition  of  relative  advance- 
ment, and  to  make  it  a  subject  of  independent  study  and  dis- 
cussion. It  does  not  affect  the  main  result  that  different  tribes 
and  nations  on  the  same  continent,  and  even  of  the  same 
linguistic  family,  are  in  different  conditions  at  the  same  time, 
since  for  our  purpose  the  condition  of  each  is  the  material  fact, 
the  time  being  immaterial. 

Since  the  use  of  pottery  is  less  significant,  than  that  of  do- 
mestic animals,  of  iron,  or  of  a  phonetic  alphabet,  employed  to 
mark  the  commencement  of  subsequent  ethnical  periods,  the 
reasons  for  its  adoption  should  be  stated.  The  manufacture  of, 
pottery  presupposes  village  life,  and  considerable  progress  in 
the  simple  arts.^  Flint  and  stone  implements  are  older  than 
pottery,  remains  of  the  former  having  been  found  in  ancient 
repositories  in  numerous  instances  unaccompanied  by  the  latter. 
A  succession  of  inventions  of  greater  need  and  adapted  to  a 
lower  condition  must  have  occurred  before  the  want  of  pottery 
would  be  felt.  The  commencement  of  village  life,  with  some 
degree  of  control  over  subsistence,  wooden  vessels  and  uten- 
sils, finger  weaving  with  filaments  of  bark,  basket  making,  and 
the  bow  and  arrow  make  their  appearance  before  the  art  of 
pottery.  The  Village  Indians  who  v/ere  in  the  Middle  Status 
of  barbarism,  such  as  the  Zunians  the  Aztecs  and  the  Cholu- 
lans,  manufactured  pottery  in  large  quantities  and  in  many 
forms  of  considerable  excellence ;  the  partially  Village  Indians 

'  Ml-.  Edwin  B.  Tylor  observes  that  Goquet  "first  propounded,  in  the  last  cent- 
ury, the  notion  that  the  way  in  which  pottery  came  to  be  made,  was  that  people 
daubed  such  combustible  vessels  as  these  with  clay  to  protect  them  from  fire,  till 
they  found  that  clay  alone  would  answer  the'purpose,  and  thus  the  art  of  pottery 
came  into  the  world." — Early  History  of  Mankipd,  p.  273.  Goquet  relates  of 
Capt.  Gonneville  who  visited  the  southeast  coast  of  South  America  in  1503,  that 
he  found  "their  household  utensils  of  wood,  even  their  boiling  pots,  but  plastered 
with  a  kind  of  clay,  a  good  finger  thick,  which  prevented  the  fire  from  burning 
them." — lb.  273. 


14 


ANCIENT  SOCIETY. 


of  the  United  States,  who  were  in  the  Lower  Status  of  barbar- 
ism, such  as  the  Iroquois  the  Choctas  and  the  Cherokees, 
made  it  in  smaller  quantities  and  in  a  limited  number  of  forms; 
but  the  Non-horticultural  Indians,  who  were  in  the  Status  of 
savagery,  such  as  the  Athapascans  the  tribes  of  California  and 
of  the  valley  of  the  Columbia,  were  ignorant  of  its  use.^  In 
Lubbock's  Pre-Historic  Times,  in  Tylor's  Early  History  of 
Mankind,  and  in  Peschel's  Races  of  Man,  the  particulars  re- 
specting this  art,  and  the  extent  of  its  distribution,  have 
been  collected  with  remarkable  breadth  of  research.  It  was 
unknown  in  Polynesia  (with  the  exception  of  the  Islands 
of  the  Tongans  and  Fijians),  in  Australia,  in  California,  and 
in  the  Hudson's  Bay  Territory.  Mr.  Tylor  remarks  that 
"  the  art  of  weaving  was  unknown  in  most  of  the  Islands 
away  from  Asia,"  and  that  "in  most  of  the  South  Sea  Islands 
there  was  no  knowledge  of  pottery."^  The  Rev.  Lorimer 
Fison,  an  English  missionary  residing  in  Australia,  informed 
the  author  in  answer  to  inquiries,  that  "the  Australians  had 
no  woven  fabrics,  no  pottery,  and  were  ignorant  of  the  bow 
and  arrow."  This  last  fact  was  also  true  in  general  of  the 
Polynesians.  The  introduction  of  the  ceramic  art  produced  a 
new  epoch  in  human  progress  in  the  direction  of  an  improved 
living  and  increased  domestic  conveniences.  While  flint  and 
stone  implements — which  came  in  earlier  and  required  long 
periods  of  time  to  develop  all  their  uses — gave  the  canoe, 
wooden  vessels  and  utensils,  and  ultimately  timber  and  plank 
in  house  architecture,^  pottery  gave  a  durable  vessel  for  boiling 
food,    which    before    that    had    been    rudely    accomplished    in 

'  Pottery  has  been  found  in  aboriginal  mounds  in  Oregon  within  a  few  years 
past. — Foster's  Pre-Historic  Races  of  the  United  States,  I,  152.  The  first  vessels 
of  pottery  among  the  Aborigines  of  the  United  States  seem  to  have  been  made  in 
baskets  of  rushes  or  willows  used  as  moulds  which  were  burned  off  after  the 
vessel  hardened. — Jones's  Antiquities  of  the  Southern  Indians,  p.  461.  Prof. 
Rau's  article  on  Pottery.     Smithsonian  Report,  1866,  p.  352. 

2  Early  History  of  Mankind,  p.  181 ;  Pre-Historic  Times,  pp.  437,  441,  462, 
477.  533.  542. 

3  Lewis  and  Clarke  (1805)  found  plank  in  use  in  houses  among  the  tribes  of  the 
Columbia  River.  —  Travels,  Longman's  Ed.,  1814,  p.  503.  Mr.  John  Keast  Lord 
found  "cedar  plank  chipped  from  the  solid  tree  with  chisels  and  hatchets  made  of 
stone,"  in  Indian  houses  on  Vancouver's  Island. — Naturalist  in  British  Columbia, 
I,  169. 


ETHNICAL  PERIODS.  I  5 

baskets   coated  with   clay,  and   in  ground  cavities  lined  with 
skin,  the  boiling  being  effected  with  heated  stones.^ 

Whether  the  pottery  of  the  aborigines  was  hardened  by  fire 
or  cured  by  the  simple  process  of  drying,  has  been  made  a 
question.  Prof.  E.  T.  Cox,  of  Indianapolis,  has  shown  by 
comparing  the  analyses  of  ancient  pottery  and  hydraulic 
cements,  "  that  so  far  as  chemical  constituents  are  concerned  it 
(the  pottery)  agrees  very  well  with  the  composition  of  hy- 
draulic stones."  He  remarks  further,  that  "all  the  pottery  be- 
longing to  the  mound-builders'  age,  which  I  have  seen,  is  com- 
posed of  alluvial  clay  and  sand,  or  a  mixture  of  the  former 
with  pulverized  fresh-water  shells.  A  paste  made  of  such  a 
mixture  possesses  in  a  high  degree  the  properties  of  hydraulic 
Puzzuolani  and  Portland  cement,  so  that  vessels  formed  of  it 
hardened  without  being  burned,  as  is  customary  with  modern 
pottery.  The  fragments  of  shells  served  the  purpose  of  gravel 
or  fragments  of  stone  as  at  present  used  in  connection  with 
hydraulic  lime  for  the  manufacture  of  artificial  stone.  "^  The 
composition  of  Indian  pottery  in  analogy  with  that  of  hydraulic 
cement  suggests  the  difficulties  in  the  way  of  inventing  the  art, 
and  tends  also  to  explain  the  lateness  of  its  introduction  in  the 
course  of  human  experience.  Notwithstanding  the  ingenious 
suggestion  of  Prof  Cox,  it  is  probable  that  pottery  was  hard- 
ened by  artificial  heat.  In  some  cases  the  fact  is  directly  at- 
tested. Thus  Adair,  speaking  of  the  Gulf  Tribes,  remarks 
that  "  they  make  earthern  pots  of  very  different  sizes,  so  as  to 
contain  from  two  to  ten  gallons,  large  pitchers  to  carry  water, 
bowls,  dishes,  platters,  basins,  and  a  prodigious  number  of  other 
vessels  of  such  antiquated  forms  as  would  be  tedious  to  de- 
scribe,  and    impossible  to    name.     Their   method   of   glazing 

'  Tylor's  Early  History  of  Mankind,  p.  265,  ct  seq. 

2  Geological  Survey  of  Indiana,  1873,  p.  1 19.  He  gives  the  following  analysis  : 
Ancient  Pottery,  "Bone  Bank,"  Posey  Co.,  Indiana. 

Moisture  at  212°  F.,          i.oo            Peroxide  of  Iron,                          5.50 
Silica,                                   36.00             Sulphuric  Acid,                                  .20 
Carbonate  of  Lime,          25.50            Organic  Matter  (alkalies 
Carbonate  of  Magnesia,    3.02                and  loss),                                  23.60 
Alumina,  5.00  


l6  ANCIENT  SOCIETY. 

them  is,  they  place  them  over  a  large  fire  of  smoky  pitch-pine, 
which  makes  them  smooth,  black  and  firm."^ 

Another  advantage  of  fixing  definite  ethnical  periods  is  the 
direction  of  special  investigation  to  those  tribes  and  nations 
which  afford  the  best  exemplification  of  each  status,  with  the 
view  of  making  each  both  standard  and  illustrative.  Some 
tribes  and  families  have  been  left  in  geographical  isolation  to 
work  out  the  problems  of  progress  by  original  mental  effort ; 
and  have,  consequently,  retained  their  arts  and  institutions  pure 
and  homogeneous ;  while  those  of  other  tribes  and  nations 
have  been  adulterated  through  external  influence.  Thus,  while 
Africa  was  and  is  an  ethnical  chaos  of  savagery  and  barbarism, 
Australia  and  Polynesia  were  in  savagery,  pure  and  simple,  with 
the  arts  and  institutions  belonging  to  that  condition.  In  like 
manner,  the  Indian  family  of  America,  unlike  any  other  exist- 
ing family,  exemplified  the  condition  of  mankind  in  three  suc- 
cessive ethnical  periods.  In  the  undisturbed  possession  of  a 
great  continent,  of  common  descent,  and  with  homogeneous 
institutions,  they  illustrated,  when  discovered,  each  of  these  con- 
ditions, and  especially  those  of  the  Lower  and  of  the  Middle 
Status  of  barbarism,  more  elaborately  and  completely  than  any 
other  portion  of  mankind.  The  far  northern  Indians  and  some 
of  the  coast  tribes  of  North  and  South  America  were  in  the 
Upper  Status  of  savagery ;  the  partially  Village  Indians  east  of 
the  Mississippi  were  in  the  Lower  Status  of  barbarism,  and  the 
Village  Indians  of  North  and  South  America  were  in  the  Mid- 
dle Status.  Such  an  opportunity  to  recover  full  and  minute 
information  of  the  course  of  human  experience  and  progress  in 
developing  their  arts  and  institutions  through  these  successive 
conditions  has  not  been  offered  within  the  historical  period.  It 
must  be  added  that  it  has  been  indifferently  improved.  Our 
greatest  deficiencies  relate  to  the  last  period  named. 

Differences  in  the  culture  of  the  same  period  in  the  Eastern 
and  Western  hemispheres  undoubtedly  existed  in  consequence 
of  the  unequal  endowments  of  the  continents;  but  the  condi- 

'  History  of  the  American  India/is,  Lond.  ed.,  1 775,  p.  424.     The  Iroquois  af- 
firm that  in  ancient  limes  their  forefathers  cured  their  pottery  before  a  fire. 


ETHNICAL  PERIODS. 


17 


tion  of  society  in  the  corresponding  status  must  have  been,  in 
the  main,  substantially-srm-ilar.  ,--^~~ 

The  ancestors  of  the  Grecian  Roman  and  German  tribes 
passed  through  the  stages  we  have  indicated,  in  the  midst  of 
the  last  of  which  the  hght  of  history  fell  upon  them.  Their 
differentiation  from  the  undistinguishable  mass  of  barbarians 
did  not  occur,  probably,  earlier  than  the  commencement  of  the 
Middle  Period  of  barbarism.  The  experience  of  these  tribes 
has  been  lost,  with  the  exception  of  so  much  as  is  represented 
by  the  institutions  inventions  and  discoveries  which  they 
brought  with  them,  and  possessed  when  they  first  came  under 
historical  observation.  The  Grecian  and  Latin  tribes  of  the 
Homeric  and  Romiulian  periods  afford  the  highest  exemplifica- 
tion of  the  Upper  Status  of  barbarism.  Their  institutions  were 
likewise  pure  and  homogeneous,  and  their  experience  stands 
directly  connected  with  the  final  achievement  of  civilization. 

Commencing,  then,  with  the  Australians  and  Polynesians, 
following  with  the  American  Indian  tribes,  and  concluding  with 
the  Roman  and  Grecian,  who  aftbrd  the  highest  exemplifica- 
tions respectively  of  the  six  great  stages  of  human  progress, 
the  sum  of  their  united  experiences  may  be  supposed  fairly  to 
represent  that  of  the  human  family  from  the  Middle  Status  of 
savagery  to  the  end  of  ancient  civilization.  Consequently,  the 
Aryan  nations  will  find  the  type  of  the  condition  of  their  re- 
mote ancestors,  when  in  savagery,  in  that  of  the  Australians 
and  Polynesians;  when  in  the  Lower  Status  of  barbarism  in 
that  of  the  partially  Village  Indians  of  America;  and  when  in 
the  Middle  Status  in  that  of  the  Village  Indians,  with  which 
their  own  experience  in  the  Upper  Status  directly  connects. 
So  essentially  identical  are  the  arts  institutions  and  mode  of 
life  in  the_same  status-upon  all  the  continents,  that  the  archaic 
form  of_the  principal  domestic  institutions  of  the  Greeks  and 
Romans  must  even  now  be  sought  in  the  corresponding  institu- 
tions of  the  American  aborigines,  as  will  be  shown  in  the  course 
of  this  volume.  This  fact  forms  a  part  of  the  accumulating 
evidence  tending  to  show  that  the  principal  institutions  of  man- 
kind have  been  developed  from  a  few  primary  germs  of 
thought;  and  that  the  course  and  manner  of  their  development 
2 


1 8  ANCIENT  SOCIE  T  V. 

was  predetermined,  as  well  as  restricted  within  narrow  limits 
of  divergence,  by  the  natural  logic  of  the  human  mind  and  the 
necessary  limitations  of  its  powers.  Progress  has  been  found 
to  be  substantially  the  same  in  kind  in  tribes  and  nations  inhab- 
iting different  and  even  disconnected  continents,  while  in  the 
same  status,  with  deviations  from  uniformity  in  particular  in- 
stances produced  by  special  causes.  The  argument  when 
extended  tends  to  establish  the  unity  of  origin  of  mankind. 

In  studying  the  condition  of  tribes  and  nations  in  these 
several  ethnical  periods  we  are  dealing,  substantially,  with  the 
ancient  history  and  condition  of  our  own  remote  ancestors. 


CHAPTER  11. 

ARTS  OF  SUBSISTENCE. 

Supremacy  ok  Mankind  over  the  Earth. — Control  over  Subsistence 
THE  Condition. — Mankind  alone  gained  that  Control. — Successive  arts 
OF  Subsistence — I.  Natural  Subsistence;  II.  Fish  Subsistence;  III. 
Farinaceous  Subsistence;  IV.  Meat  and  Milk  Subsistence;  V.  Unlim- 
ited Subsistence  through  Field  Agriculture. — Long  Intervals  of  Time 
between  them. 

The  important  fact  that  mankind  commenced  at  the  bottom 
of  the  scale  and  worked  up,  is  revealed  in  an  expressive  man- 
ner by  their  successive  arts  of  subsistence.  Upon  their  skill  in 
this  direction,  the  whole  question  of  human  supremacy  on  the 
earth  depended.  Mankind  are  the  only  beings  who  may  be 
said  to  have  gained  an  absolute  control  over  the  production  of 
food;  which  at  the  outset  they  did  not  possess  above  other  an- 
imals. Without  enlarging  the  basis  of  subsistence,  mankind 
could  not  have  propagated  themselves  into  other  areas  not  pos- 
sessing the  same  kinds  of  food,  and  ultimately  over  the  whole 
surface  of  the  earth ;  and  lastly,  without  obtaining  an  absolute 
control  over  both  its  variety  and  amount,  they  could  not  have 
multiplied  into  populous  nations.  It  is  accordingly  probable 
that  the  great  epochs  of  human  progress  have  been  identified, 
more  or  less  directly,  with  the  enlargement  of  the  sources  of 
subsistence. 

We  are  able  to  distinguish  five  of  these  sources  of  human 
food,  created  by  what  may  be  called  as  many  successive  ^rts, 
one  superadded  to  the  other,  and  brought  out  at  long  separated 
intervals  of  time.     The  first  two  originated  in  the  period  of 


20  ANCIENT  SOCIETY. 

savagery,  and  the  last  three,  in  the  period  of  barbarism.     They 
are  the  following,  stated  in  the  order  of  their  appearance: 

I.  Natural  Subsistence  upon  Fruits  and  Roots  on  a  Rcstrietcd 
Hahital 

^'his  proposition  carries  us  back  to  the  strictly  primitive 
period  of  mankind,  when  few  in  numbers,  simple  in  subsistence, 
and  occupying  limited  areas,  they  were  just  entering  upon  their 
new  career.  There  is  neither  an  art,  nor  an  institution,  that 
can  be  referred  to  this  period;  and  but  one  invention,  that  of 
language,  which  can  be  connected  with  an  epoch  so  remote. 
The  kind  of  subsistence  indicated  assumes  a  tropical  or  sub- 
tropical climate.  In  such  a  climate,  by  common  consent,  the 
habitat  of  primitive  man  has  been  placed.  In  fruit  and  nut- 
bearing  forests  under  a  tropical  sun,  we  are  accustomed,  and 
with  reason,  to  regard  our  progenitors  as  having  commenced 
their  existence. 

The  races  of  animals  preceded  the  race  of  mankind,  in  the 
order  of  time.  We  are  warranted  in  supposing  that  they  were 
in  the  plenitude  of  their  strength  and  numbers  when  the  human 
race  first  appeared.  The  classical  poets  pictured  the  tribes  of 
mankind  dwelling  in  groves,  in  caves  and  in  forests,  for  the  pos- 
session of  which  they  disputed  with  wild  beasts^ — while  they 
sustained  themselves  with  the  spontaneous  fruits  of  the  earth. 
If  mankind  commenced  their  career  without  experience,  with- 
out weapons,  and  surrounded  with  ferocious  animals,  it  is  not 
improbable  that  they  were,  at  least  partially,  tree-livers,  as  a 
means  of  protection  and  security. 

The  maintenance  of  life,  through  the  constant  acquisition  of 
food,  is  the  great  burden  imposed  upon  existence  in  all  species 
of  animals.  As  we  descend  in  the  scale  of  structural  organiza- 
tion, subsistence  becomes  more  and  more  simple  at  each  stage, 
until  the  mystery  finally  vanishes.  But,  in  the  ascending  scale, 
it  becomes  increasingly  difficult  until  the  highest  structural 
form,  that  of  man,  is  reached,  when  it  attains  the  maximum. 

'  Necdum  res  igni  scibant  tractare,  nee  uti 
•  Pellibus,  et  spoliis  corpus  vestire  ferarum  : 

Sed  nemora,  atque  cavos  montis,  silvasque  colebant, 
Et  frutices  inter  condebant  squalida  membra, 
Verbera  ventorum  vitare  imbrisque  coacti. 

— Lucr.  De  Re.  Nai.,  lib.  v,  951. 


ARTS  OF  SUBSISTENCE.  21 

Intelligence  from  henceforth  becomes  a  more  prominent  factor. 
Animal  food,  in  all  probability,  entered  from  a  very  early 
period  into  human  consumption ;  but  whether  it  was  actively 
sought  when  mankind  were  essentially  frugivorous  in  practice, 
though  omnivorous  in  structural  organization,  must  remain  a 
matter  of  conjecture.  This  mode  of  sustenance  belongs  to  the 
strictly  primitive  period. 

II.  Fish  Subsistence. 

In  fish  must  be  recognized  the  first  kind  of  artificial  food, 
because  it  was  not  fully  available  without  cooking.  Fire  was 
first  utilized,  not  unlikely,  for  this  purpose.  Fish  were  univers- 
al in  distribution,  unlimited  in  supply,  and  the  only  kind  of  food 
at  all  times  attainable.  The  cereals  in  the  primitive  period  were 
still  unknown,  if  in  fact  they  existed,  and  the  hunt  for  game  was 
too  precarious  ever  to  have  formed  an  exclusive  means  of  human 
support.  Upon  this  species  of  food  mankind  became  independ- 
ent of  climate  and  of  locality ;  and  by  following  the  shores  of 
the  seas  and  lakes,  and  the  courses  of  the  rivers  could,  while  in 
the  savage  state,  spread  themselves  over  the  greater  portion  of 
the  earth's  surface.  Of  the  fact  of  these  migrations  there  is 
abundant  evidence  in  the  remains  of  flint  and  stone  implements 
of  the  Status  of  Savagery  found  upon  all  the  continents.  In 
reliance  upon  fruits  and  spontaneous  subsistence  a  removal  from 
the  original  habitat  would  have  been  impossible. 

Between  the  introduction  of  fish,  followed  by  the  wide  mi-  ">^ 
grations  named,  and  the  cultivation  of  farinaceous  food,  the  in- 
terval of  time  was  immense.  It  covers  a  large  part  of  the  pe- 
riod of  savagery.  But  during  this  interval  there  was  an  impor- 
tant increase  in  the  variety  and  amount  of  food.  Such,  for  ex- 
ample, as  the  bread  roots  cooked  in  ground  ovens,  and  in  the 
permanent  addition  of  game  through  improved  weapons,  and 
especially  through  the  bow  and  arrow.  This  remarkable  inven- 
tion, which  came  in  after  the  spear  and  war  club,  and  gave  the 
first  deadly  weapon  for  the  hunt,  appeared  late  in  savagery.' 

1  As  a  combination  of  forces  it  is  so  abstruse  that  it  not  unlikely  owed  its  origin 
to  accident.  The  elasticity  and  toughness  of  certain  kinds  of  wood,  the  tension 
of  a  cord  of  sinew  or  vegetable  fibre  by  means  of  a  bent  bow,  and  finally  their 
combination  to  propel  an  arrow  by  human  muscle,  are  not  very  obvious  sugges-   ' 


22  ANCIENT  SOCIETY. 

It  has  been  used  to  mark  the  commencement  of  its  Upper  Sta- 
tus. It  must  have  given  a  powerful  upward  influence  to  ancient 
society,  standing  in  the  same  relation  to  the  period  of  savagery, 
as  the  iron  sword  to  the  period  of  barbarism,  and  fire-arms  to 
the  period  of  civilization. 

From  the  precarious  nature  of  all  these  sources  of  food,  out- 
side of  the  great  fish  areas,  cannibalism  became  the  dire  resort 
of  mankind.  The  ancient  universality  of  this  practice  is  being 
gradually  demonstrated. 

III.  Farinaceous  Subsistence  through  Cultivation. 

We  now  leave  Savagery  and  enter  the  Lower  Status  of  barbar- 
ism. The  cultivation  of  cereals  and  plants  was  unknown  in  the 
Western  hemisphere  except  among  the  tribes  who  had  emerged 
from  savagery;  and  it  seems  to  have  been  unknown  in  the 
Eastern  hemisphere  until  after  the  tribes  of  Asia  and  Europe 
had  passed  through  the  Lower,  and  had  drawn  near  to  the 
close  of  the  Middle  Status  of  barbarism.  It  gives  us  the  sin- 
gular fact  that  the  American  aborigines  in  the  Lower  Status 
of  barbarism  were  in  possession  of  horticulture  one  entire  eth- 
nical period  earlier  than  the  inhabitants  of  the  Eastern  hemi- 
sphere. It  was  a  consequence  of  the  unequal  endowments  of 
the  two  hemispheres;  the  Eastern  possessing  all  the  animals 
adapted  to  domestication,  save  one,  and  a  majority  of  the 
cereals ;  while  the  Western  had  only  one  cereal  fit  for  cultiva- 
tion, but  that  the  best.  It  tended  to  prolong  the  older  period 
of  barbarism  in  the  former,  to  shorten  it  in  the  latter;  and 
with  the  advantage  of  condition  in  this  period  in  favor  of  the 
American  aborigines.  But  when  the  most  advanced  tribes  in 
the  Eastern  hemisphere,  at  the  commencement  of  the  Middle 
Period  of  barbarism,  had  domesticated  animals  which  gave 
them  meat  and  milk,  their  condition,  without  a  knowledge  of  the 
cereals,  was  much  superior  to  that  of  the  American  aborigines 
in  the  corresponding  period,  with  maize  and  plants,  but  without 
domestic    animals.      The    differentiation    of    the    Semitic    and 

tions  to  the  mind  of  a  savage.  As  elsewhere  noticed,  the  bow  and  arrow  are  un- 
known to  the  Polynesians  in  general,  and  to  the  Australians.  From  this  fact 
alone  it  is  shown  that  mankind  were  well  advanced  in  the  savage  state  when  the 
bow  and  arrow  made  their  first  appearance. 


ARTS  OF  SUBSISTENCE.  23 

Aryan   families   from  the   mass  of  barbarians  seems   to   have 
commenced  with  the  domestication  of  animals. 

That  the  discovery  and  cultivation  of  the  cereals  by  the  \ 
Aryan  family  was  subsequent  to  the  domestication  of  animals 
is  shown  by  the  fact,  that  there  are  common  terms  for  these 
animals  in  the  several  dialects  of  the  Aryan  language,  and  no 
common  terms  for  the  cereals  or  cultivated  plants.  Mommsen, 
after  showing  that  the  domestic  animals  have  the  same  names  in 
the  Sanskrit  Greek  and  Latin  (which  Max  Miiller  afterwards  ex- 
tended to  the  remaining  Aryan  dialects^)  thus  proving  that  they 
w^ere  known  and  presumptively  domesticated  before  the  sepa- 
ration of  these  nations  from  each  other,  proceeds  as  follows : 
"  On  the  other  hand,  we  have  as  yet  no  certain  proofs  of  the 
existence  of  agriculture  at  this  period.  Language  rather  favors 
the  negative  view.  Of  the  Latin- Greek  names  of  grain  none 
occur  in  the  Sanskrit  with  the  single  exception  of  <?ta',  which 
philologically  represents  the  Sanskrit  yavas,  but  denotes  in 
Indian,  barley ;  in  Greek,  spelt.  It  must  indeed  be  granted 
that  this  diversity  in  the  names  of  cultivated  plants,  which  so 
strongly  contrasts  with  the  essential  agreement  in  the  appella- 
tions of  domestic  animals,  does  not  absolutely  preclude  the  sup- 
position of  a  common  original  agriculture.  The  cultivation  of 
rice  among  the  Indians,  that  of  wheat  and  spelt  among  the 
Greeks,  and  that  of  rye  and  oats  among  the  Germans  and  Celts, 
may  all  be  traceable  to  a  common  system  of  original  tillaa-e."^ 
This  last  conclusion  is  forced.  Horticulture  preceded  field  cult-  \ 
ure,  as  the  garden  (hortos)  preceded  the  field  (ager);  and  al- 
though the  latter  impUes  boundaries,  the  former  signifies  di- 
rectly an  "inclosed  space."  Tillage,  however,  must  have  been 
older  than  the  inclosed  garden;  the  natural  order  being  first, 
tillage  of  patches  of  open  alluvial  land,  second  of  inclosed 
spaces  or  gardens,  and  third,  of  the  field  by  means  of  the  plow 
drawn  by  animal  power.  Whether  the  cultivation  of  such 
plants  as  the  pea,  bean,  turnip,  parsnip,  beet,  squash  and  melon, 
one  or  more  of  them,  preceded  the  cultivation  of  the  cereals, 
we  have  at  present  no  means  of  knowing.     Some  of  these  have 

'  Chips  from  a  Germa7t  Workshop,  Comp.  Table,  ii,  p.  42. 
*  History  of  Rome,  Scribner's  ed.,  1871,  I,  p.  38. 


24 


ANCIENT  SOCIETY. 


common  terms  in  Greek  and  Latin;  but  I  am  assured  by  our 
eminent  philologist,  Prof.  W.  D.  Whitney,  that  neither  of  them 
has  a  common  term  in  Greek  or  Latin  and  Sanskrit. 

Horticulture  seems  to  have  originated  more  in  the  necessi- 
ties of  the  domestic  animals  than  in  those  of  mankind.  In  the 
Western  hemisphere  it  commenced  with  maize.  This  new  era, 
although  not  synchronous  in  the  two  hemispheres,  had  immense 
influence  upon  the  destiny  of  mankind.  Tiiere  are  reasons 
for  believing  that  it  required  ages  to  establish  the  art  of  culti- 
vation, and  render  farinaceous  food  a  principal  reliance.  Since 
in  America  it  led  to  localization  and  to  village  life,  it  tended, 
especially  among  the  Village  Indians,  to  take  the  place  of  fish 
and  game.  From  the  cereals  and  cultivated  plants,  moreover, 
mankind  obtained  their  first  impression  of  the  possibility  of  an 
abundance  of  food. 

The  acquisition  of  farinaceous  food  in  America  and  of  domes- 
tic animals  in  Asia  and  Europe,  were  the  means  of  delivering 
the  advanced  tribes,  thus  provided,  from  the  scourge  of  canni- 
balism, which  as  elsewhere  stated,  there  are  reasons  for  believ- 
ing was  practiced  universally  throughout  the  period  of  savagery 
upon  captured  enemies,  and,  in  time  of  famine,  upon  friends  and 
kindred.  Cannibalism  in  war,  practiced  by  war  parties  in  the 
field,  survived  among  the  American  aborigines,  not  only  in  the 
Lower,  but  also  in  the  Middle  Status  of  barbarism,  as,  for  ex- 
ample, among  the  Iroquois  and  the  Aztecs ;  but  the  general 
practice  had  disappeared.  This  forcibly  illustrates  the  great 
importance  which  is  exercised  by  a  permanent  increase  of  food 
in  ameliorating  the  condition  of  mankind. 

IV.  Meat  and  Milk  Subsistence. 
-"--The   absence   of   animals   adapted   to   domestication   in   the 
Western  hemisphere,  excepting  the  llama,^  and  the  specific  dif- 
ferences in  the  cereals  of  the  two  hemispheres  exercised  an  im- 
portant influence  upon  the  relative  advancement  of  their  inhab- 

1  The  early  Spanish  writers  speak  of  a  "dumb  dog"  found  domesticated  in  the 
West  India  Islands,  and  also  in  Mexico  and  Central  America.  (See  figures  of 
the  Aztec  dog  in  pi.  iii,  vol.  I,  of  Clavigero's  History  of  Mexico).  I  have  seen 
no  identification  of  the  animal.  They  also  speak  of  poultry  as  well  as  turkeys  on 
the  continent.  The  aborigines  had  domesticated  the  turkey,  and  the  Nahuatlac 
tribes  some  species  of  wild  fowl. 


ARTS  OF  SUBSISTENCE.  25 

itants.  While  this  inequahty  of  endowments  was  immaterial 
to  mankind  in  the  period  of  savagery,  and  not  marked  in  its 
effects  in  the  Lower  Status  of  barbarism,  it  made  an  essential 
difference  with  that  portion  who  had  attained  to  the  Middle 
Status.  The  domestication  of  animals  provided  a  permanent 
meat  and  milk  subsistence  which  tended  to  differentiate  the 
tribes  which  possessed  them  from  the  mass  of  other  barbarians. 
In  the  Western  hemisphere,  meat  was  restricted  to  the  precari- 
ous supplies  of  game.  This  limitation  upon  an  essential  species 
of  food  was  unfavorable  to  the  Village  Indians;  and  doubtless 
sufficiently  explains  the  inferior  size  of  the  brain  among  them 
in  comparison  with  that  of  Indians  in  the  Lower  Status  of  bar- 
barism. In  the  Eastern  hemisphere,  the  domestication  of  ani- 
mals enabled  the  thrifty  and  industrious  to  secure  for  them- 
selves a  permanent  supply  of  animal  food,  including  milk ;  the 
healthful  and  invigorating  influence  of  which  upon  the  race, 
and  especially  upon  children,  was  undoubtedly  remarkable.  It 
is  at  least  supposable  that  the  Aryan  and  Semitic  families  owe 
their  pre-eminent  endowments  to  the  great  scale  upon  Avhich, 
as  far  back  as  our  knowledge  extends,  they  have  identified 
themselves  with  the  maintenance  in  numbers  of  the  domestic 
animals.  In  fact,  they  incorporated  them,  flesh,  milk,  and  mus- 
cle into  their  plan  of  life.^  No  other  family  of  mankind  have 
done  this  to  an  equal  extent,  and  the  Aryan  have  done  it  to  a 
greater  extent  than  the  Semitic. 

The,,4gP^stication  of  am mals^jra^iiaUy^JBtxodu^ed^ 
mode  of  life,  the  pastoral,  upon  the_-plains  of  theTjinhrates 
amTof  tiidia,  and  upurrthe" steppes  of  Asia  ;  on  the  confines  of 
"onF'Or-ihe-other-of -whiet^-^he  dumesticat  of  animals  was 
probably  first  accomplished.  To  these  areas,  their  oldest  tradi- 
tions and  their  histories  alike  refer  them.  They  were  thus 
drawn  to  regions  which,  so  far  from  being  the  cradle  lands  of 
the  human  race,  were  areas  they  would  not  have  occupied  as 
savages,  or  as  barbarians  in  the  Lower  Status  of  barbarism,  to 


1  We  learn  from  the  Iliad  that  the  Greeks  milked  their  sheep,  as  well  as  their 
cows  and  goats  : 

oS'e'r'  o'iEi  TtoXvitdiiovoi  dvdpoi  kv  avX-g 
Hvpiai  edrr/Hadiv  djiiely6/.ievai  ydXa  Xevhov.— Iliad,  iv,  433. 


26  ANCIENT  SOCIETY. 

whom  forest  areas  were  natural  homes.  After  becoming  habit- 
uated to  pastoral  life,  it  must  have  been  impossible  for  either  of 
these  families  to  re-enter  the  forest  areas  of  Western  Asia  and 
of  Europe  with  their  flocks  and  herds,  without  first  learning  to 
cultivate  some  of  the  cereals  with  which  to  subsist  the  latter  at 
a  distance  from  the  grass  plains.  It  seems  extremely  probable, 
therefore,  as  before  stated,  that  the  cultivation  of  the  cereals 
originated  in  the  necessities  of  the  domestic  animals,  and  in 
connection  with  these  western  migrations;  and  that  the  use  of 
farinaceous  food  by  these  tribes  was  a  consequence  of  the 
knowledge  thus  acquired. 

In  the  Western  hemisphere,  the  aborigines  were  enabled  to 
advance  generally  into  the  Lower  Status  of  barbarism,  and  a 
portion  of  them  into  the  Middle  Status,  without  domestic  ani- 
mals, excepting  the  llama  in  Peru,  and  upon  a  single  cereal, 
maize,  with  the  adjuncts  of  the  bean,  squash,  and  tobacco,  and 
in  some  areas,  cacao,  cotton  and  pepper.  But  maize,  from  its 
growth  in  the  hill — v/hich  favored  direct  cultivation — from  its 
useableness  both  green  and  ripe,  and  from  its  abundant  yield 
and  nutritive  properties,  was  a  richer  endowment  in  aid  of  early 
human  progress  than  all  other  cereals  put  together.  It  serves 
to  explain  the  remarkable  progress  the  American  aborigines 
had  made  without  the  domestic  animals ;  the  Peruvians  having 
produced  bronze,  which  stands  next,  and  quite  near,  in  the 
order  of  time,  to  the  process  of  smelting  iron  ore. 

V.    Unlimited  Subsistence  through  Field  Agriculture. 

The  domestic  animals  supplementing  human  muscle  with 
animal  power,  contributed  a  new  factor  of  the  highest  value. 
In  course  of  time,  the  production  of  iron  gave  the  plow  with 
an  iron  point,  and  a  better  spade  and  axe.  Out  of  these,  and 
the  previous  horticulture,  came  field  agriculture;  and  with  it, 
for  the  first  time,  unlimited  subsistence.  The  plow  drawn  by 
animal  power  may  be  regarded  as  inaugurating  a  new  art. 
,  Now,  for  the  first  time,  came  the  thought  of  reducing  the  for- 
est,  and   bringing   wide   fields   under   cultivation.^     Moreover, 

'  Inque  dies  magis  in  montem  succedere  silvas 
Cogebant,  infraque  locum  concedere  cultis  ; 
Prata,  lacus,  rivas,  segetes,  vinetaque  laeta 
Collibus  et  campis  ut  habcrent. — Lticr.  De  Re.  Nat.,  v,  1369. 


ARTS  OF  SUBSISTENCE. 


27 


dense  populations  in  limited  areas  now  became  possible. 
Prior  to  field  agriculture  it  is  not  probable  that  half  a  million 
people  were  developed  and  held  together  under  one  govern- 
ment in  any  part  of  the  earth.  If  exceptions  occurred,  they 
must  have  resulted  from  pastoral  life  on  the  plains,  or  from 
horticulture  improved  by  irrigation,  under  peculiar  and  excep- 
tional conditions. 

In  the  course  of  these  pages  it  will  become  necessary  to 
speak  of  the  family  as  it  existed  in  different  ethnical  periods; 
its  form  in  one  period  being  sometimes  entirely  different  from 
its  form  in  another.  In  Part  III  these  several  forms  of  the 
family  will  be  treated  specially.  But  as  they  will  be  frequently 
mentioned  in  the  next  ensuing  Part,  they  should  at  least  be  de- 
fined in  advance  for  the  information  of  the  reader.  They  are 
the  following: 

I.  The  Consanguine  Family. 

It  was  founded  upon  the  intermarriage  of  brothers  and  sisters 
in  a  group.  Evidence  still  remains  in  the  oldest  of  existing 
systems  of  Consanguinity,  the  Malayan,  tending  to  show  that 
this,  the  first  form  of  the  family,  was  anciently  as  universal  as 
this  system  of  consanguinity  which  it  created. 

II.  The  Pnnaluan  Family. 

Its  name  is  derived  from  the  Hawaiian  relationship  of  Pu- 
naliia.  It  was  founded  upon  the  intermarriage  of  several 
brothers  to  each  other's  wives  in  a  group;  and  of  several  sis- 
ters to  each  other's  husbands  in  a  group.  But  the  term 
brother,  as  here  used,  included  the  first,  second,  third,  and  even 
more  remote  male  cousins,  all  of  whom  were  considered 
brothers  to  each  other,  as  we  consider  own  brothers ;  and  the 
term  sister  included  the  first,  second,  third,  and  even  more 
remote  female  cousins,  all  of  whom  were  sisters  to  each  other, 
the  same  as  own  sisters.  This  form  of  the  family  supervened 
upon  the  consanguine.  It  created  the  Turanian  and  Gano- 
wanian  systems  of  consanguinity.  Both  this  and  the  previous 
form  belong  to  the  period  of  savagery,' 

III.  The  Syndyasmian  Family. 

The  term  is  from  avvdva8,Qo,  to  pair,  ffvvdvaffjxrU,  a  join- 


28  ANCIENT  SOCIETY. 

ing  two  together.  It  was  founded  upon  the  pairing  of  a  male 
with  a  female  under  the  form  of  marriage,  but  without  an  ex- 
clusive cohabitation.  It  was  the  germ  of  the  Monogamian 
Family.  Divorce  or  separation  was  at  the  option  of  both 
husband  and  wife.  This  form  of  the  family  failed  to  create  a 
system  of  consanguinity. 

IV.  TJie  Patriarchal  Family. 

It  was  founded  upon  the  marriage  of  one  man  to  several 
wives.  The  term  is  here  used  in  a  restricted  sense  to  define 
the  special  family  of  the  Hebrew  pastoral  tribes,  the  chiefs  and 
principal  men  of  which  practiced  polygamy.  It  exercised  but 
little  influence  upon  human  affairs  for  want  of  universality. 

V.  The  Monogamian  Family. 

It  was  founded  upon  the  marriage  of  one  man  with  one 
woman,  with  an  exclusive  cohabitation ;  the  latter  constituting 
the  essential  element  of  the  institution.  It  is  pre-eminently  the 
family  of  civilized  society,  and  was  therefore  essentially  modern, 
'This  formof  the  family  also  created  an  independent  system  of 
^^consanguinity. 

Evidence  will  elsewhere  be  produced  tending  to  show  both 
the  existence  and  the  general  prevalence  of  these  several  forms 
of  the  family  at  different  stages  of  human  progress. 


CHAPTER  III. 

RATIO   OF  HUMAN  PROGRESS. 

Retrospect  on  the  Lines  of  Human  Progress. — Principal  Contribu- 
tions OF  Modern  Civilization. — Of  Ancient  Civilization. — Of  Later 
Period  of  Barbarism. — Of  Middle  Period. — Of  Older  Period. — Of  Pe- 
riod of  Savagery. — Humble  Condition  of  Primitive  Man. — Human  Prog- 
ress IN  a  Geometrical  R.\tio. — Relative  Length  of  Ethnical  Periods. — 
Appearance  of  Semitic  and  Aryan  Families. 

It  is  well  to  obtain  an  impression  of  the  relative  amount  and 
of  the  ratio  of  human  progress  in  the  several  ethnical  periods 
named,  by  grouping  together  the  achievements  of  each,  and 
comparing  them  with  each  other  as  distinct  classes  of  facts. 
This  will  also  enable  us  to  form  some  conception  of  the  relative 
duration  of  these  periods.  To  render  it  forcible,  such  a  survey 
must  be  general,  and  in  the  nature  of  a  recapitulation.  It 
should,  likewise,  be  limited  to  the  principal  works  of  each 
period. 

Before  man  could  have  attained  to  the  civilized  state  it 
was  necessary  that  he  should  gain  all  the  elements  of  civihza- 
tion.  This  implies  an  amazing  change  of  condition,  first  from 
a  primitive  savage  to  a  barbarian  of  the  lowest  type,  and  then 
from  the  latter  to  a  Greek  of  the  Homeric  period,  or  to  a 
Hebrew  of  the  time  of  Abraham.  The  progressive  develop- 
ment which  history  records  in  the  period  of  civilization  was  not 
less  true  of  man  in  each  of  the  previous  periods.  , 

By  re-ascending  along  the  several  lines  of  human  progress     r" 
toward  the  primitive   ages  of  man's  existence,  and  removing 
one  by  one  his  principal  institutions  inventions  and  discoveries, 


30  ANCIENT  SOCIETY. 

in  the  order  in  which  they  have  appeared,  the  advance  made 
in  each  period  will  be  realized. 

The  principal  contributions  of  modern  civilization  are  the 
electric  telegraph  ;  coal  gas;  the  spinning-jenny;  and  the  power 
loom  ;  the  steam-engine  with  its  numerous  dependent  machines, 
including  the  locomotive,  the  railway,  and  the  steam-ship ;  the 
telescope;  the  discovery  of  the  ponderability  of  the  atmos- 
phere and  of  the  solar  system;  the  art  of  printing;  the  canal 
lock;  the  mariner's  compass;  and  gunpowder.  The  mass  of 
other  inventions,  such,  for  example,  as  the  Ericsson  propeller, 
will  be  found  to  hinge  upon  one  or  another  of  those  named  as 
antecedents:  but  there  are  exceptions,  as  photography,  and 
numerous  machines  not  necessary  to  be  noticed.  With  these 
also  should  be  removed  the  modern  sciences;  religious  free- 
dom and  the  common  schools;  representative  democracy; 
constitutional  monarchy  with  parliaments;  the  feudal  kingdom; 
modern  privileged  classes;  international,  statute  and  common 
law. 

\/  Modern  civilization  recovered  and  absorbed  whatever  was 
valuable  in  the  ancient  civilizations;  and  although  its  contribu- 
tions to  the  sum  of  human  knowledge  have  been  vast,  brilliant 
and  rapid,  they  are  far  from  being  so  disproportionately  large  as 
to  overshadow  the  ancient  civilizations  and  sink  them  into  com- 
parative insignificance. 

-i  Passing  over  the  mediaeval  period,  which  gave  Gothic  archi- 
tecture, feudal  aristocracy  with  hereditary  titles  of  rank,  and 
a  hierarchy  under  the  headship  of  a  pope,  we  enter  the  Roman 
and  Grecian  civilizations.  They  will  be  found  deficient  in 
great  inventions  and  discoveries,  but  distinguished  in  art,  in 
philosophy,  and  in  organic  institutions.  ^VT'he  principal  contri- 
butions of  these  civilizations  were  imperial  and  kingly  govern- 
-ment;  the  civil  law;  Christianity;  mixed  aristocratical  and 
democratical  government,  with  a  senate  and  consuls;  demo- 
cratical  government  with  a  council  and  popular  assembly ;  the 
organization  of  armies  into  cavalry  and  infantry,  with  military 
discipline;  the  establishment  of  navies,  with  the  practice  of 
naval  warfare;  the  formation  of  great  cities,  with  municipal 
law;  commerce  on  the  seas;  the  coinage  of  money;  and  the 


RA  TIO  OF  HUMAN  PROGRESS.  3  i 

state,  founded  upon  territory  and  upon  property;  and  among 
inventions,  fire-baked  brick,  the  crane,^  the  water-wheel  for 
driving  mills,  the  bridge,  acqueduct  and  sewer;  lead  pipe  used 
as  a  conduit  with  the  faucet;  the  arch,  the  balance  scale;  the 
arts  and  sciences  of  the  classical  period,  with  their  results,  in- 
cluding the  orders  of  architecture;  the  Arabic  numerals,  and 
alphabetic  writing. 

These  civilizations  drew  largely  from,  as  well  as  rested  upon, 
the  inventions  and  discoveries  and  the  institutions  of  the  previ- 
ous period  of  barbarism.  The  achievements  of  civilized  man, 
although  very  great  and  remarkable,  are  nevertheless  very  far 
from  sufficient  to  eclipse  the  works  of  man  as  a  barbarian.  As 
such  he  had  wrought  out  and  possessed  all  the  elements  of 
civilization,  excepting  alphabetic  writing.  His  achievements 
as  a  barbarian  should  be  considered  in  their  relation  to  the  sum 
of  human  progress;  and  we  may  be  forced  to  admit  that  they 
transcend,  in  relative  importance,  all  his  subsequent  works. 

The  use  of  writing,  or  its  equivalent  in  hieroglyphics  upon 
stone,  affords  a  fair  test  of  the  commencement  of  civilization.^ 
Without  literary  records  neither  history  nor  civilization  can 
properly  be. said  to  exist.  The  production  of  the  Homeric 
poems,  whether  transmitted  orally  or  committed  to  writing  at 
the  time,  fixes  with  sufficient  nearness  the  introduction  of  civili- 
zation among  the  Greeks.  These  poems,  ever  fresh  and  ever 
marv^elous,  possess  an  ethnological  value  which  enhances  im- 
mensely their  other  excellences.  This  is  especially  true  of  the 
Iliad,  which  contains  the  oldest  as  well  as  the  most  circum- 
stantial account  now  existing  of  the  progress  of  mankind  up  to 
the  time  of  its  composition.     Strabo  compliments  Homer  as 

*  The  Egyptians  may  have  invented  the  crane  (See  Herodotus,  ii,  125).  They 
also  had  the  balance  scale. 

*  The  phonetic  alphabet  came,  like  other  great  inventions,  at  the  end  of  succes- 
sive efforts.  The  slovir  Egyptian,  advancing  the  hieroglyph  through  its  several 
forms,  had  reached  a  syllabus  composed  of  phonetic  characters,  and  at  this  stage 
was  resting  upon  his  labors.  He  could  write  in  permanent  characters  upon  stone. 
Then  came  in  the  inquisitive  Phoenician,  the  first  navigator  and  trader  on  the  sea, 
who,  whether  previously  versed  in  hieroglyphs  or  otherwise,  seems  to  have  entered 
at  a  bound  upon  the  labors  of  the  Egyptian,  and  by  an  inspiration  of  genius  to 
have  mastered  the  problem  over  which  the  latter  was  dreaming.  He  produced 
that  wondrous  alphabet  of  sixteen  letters  which  in  time  gave  to  mankind  a  written 
language  and  the  means  for  hterary  and  historical  records. 


32 


ANCIENT  SOCIETY. 


the  father  of  geographical  science;  ^  but  the  great  poet  has  given, 
perhaps  without  design,  what  was  infinitely  more  important  to 
succeeding  generations:  namely,  a  remarkably  full  exposition 
of  the  arts,  usages,  inventions  and  discoveries,  and  mode  of  life 
of  the  ancient  Greeks.  It  presents  our  first  comprehensive 
picture  of  Aryan  society  while  still  in  barbarism,  showing  the 
progress  then  made,  and  of  what  particulars  it  consisted. 
Through  these  poems  we  are  enabled  confidently  to  state  that 
certain  things  were  known  among  the  Greeks  before  they  en- 
tered upon  civilization.  They  also  cast  an  illuminating  light 
far  backward  into  the  period  of  barbarism. 

Using  the  Homeric  poems  as  a  guide  and  continuing  the 
retrospect  into  the  Later  Period  of  barbarism,  let  us  strike  off 
from  the  knowledge  and  experience  of  mankind  the  invention 
of  poetry;  the  ancient  mythology  in  its  elaborate  form,  with 
the  Olympian  divinities;  temple  architecture;  the  knowledge 
of  the  cereals,  excepting  maize  and  cultivated  plants,  with  field 
agriculture;^  cities  encompassed  with  walls  of  stone,  with  bat- 
tlements, towers  and  gates;  the  use  of  marble  in  architecture;^ 
ship-building  with  plank  and  probably  with  the  use  of  nails  ;^ 
the  wagon  and  the  chariot;^  metallic  plate  armor;®  the  copper- 

1  (i^XVy^''^V'^  ^'i^ocT-  ^'/S  y EQoy pacpiKvi  £/.i7tsipiai"Olurfpov. — St7-abo,  I,  2. 

2  Barley  xpTBi^,  white  barley  Hpi  Xevkov. — Iliad,  v,  196;  viii,  564:  barley 
flour  aXq>iTov. — //.,  xi,  631 :  barley  meal,  made  of  barley  and  salt,  and  used  as 
an  oblation  ovXoxvrai. — //.,  i,  449:  wheat  Ttvpoi. — //.,  xi,  756:  rye  oXvpoc. 
— //.,  V,  196,  viii,  564:  bread  dltoi. — //.,  xxiv,  625:  an  inclosed  50  acres  oC 
land  TtEvrrpiovoyvoi. — //.,  ix,  579:  a  fence  apxoi. — //.,  v,  90:  a  field  dXaoa. 
— //.,  V,  90:  stones  set  for  a  field  boundary. — //.,  xxi,  405  :  plow  aporpov. — //., 
X,  353  ;  xiii,  703. 

3  The  house  or  mansion  S6jiio'>. — //.,  vi,  390:  odoriferous  chambers  of  cedar, 
lofty  roofed. — //.,  vi,  390:  house  of  Priam,  in  which  were  fifty  chambers  of  pol- 
ished stones  avrdp  iv  avTc2  TtEVTi'/MorT^  £VE6av  ^dXa,uoi  ^Edroio  XiOoid. 
— //.,  vi,  243. 

■*  Ship  yrfvi. — //.,  i,  4S5J  white  sail  Xevkov  idriov. — //.,  i,  480:  cable  or 
hawser  TtpvjLivr/dto?. — //.,  i,  476:  oar  ipETjiio?. — Odysse}',  iv,  782:  mastz'cjro'?. 
— Od.,  iv,  781  :  keel  drsipr/. — //.,  i,  482:  ship  plank  dovpoi. — //.,  iii,  61 :  long 
plank  f-iaupd  dovpara. —  Od.,  v,  162:  nail  rfXoi. — //.,  xi,  633:  golden  nail 
Xpsdvioi  J/Xo?. — //.,  xi,  633. 

6  Chariot  or  vehicle  oXO'S. — //.,  viii,  3S9,  565  :  four-wheeled  wagon  TETpd- 
HVuXri  dni]vi]. — //.,  xxiv,  324:  chariot  dicppo?. — //.,  v,  727,  837;  viii,  403: 
the  same  d'pjiia. — //.,  ii,  775  ;  vii,  426. 

8  Helmet  Kopv?. — //.,  xviii,  6ll;  xx,  398:  cuirass  or  corselet  $Gjpa^. — //.,  xvi, 
133;  xviii,  610:  greaves  HVTfjuii. — //.,  xvi,  131. 


RA  TIO  OF  HUMAN  PROGRESS. 


JO 


pointed  spear  and  embossed  shield;^  the  iron  sword;-  the 
manufacture  of  wine,  probably;^  the  mechanical  powers  ex- 
cepting the  screw;  the  potter's  wheel  and  the  hand-mill  for 
grinding  grain;*  woven  fabrics  of  linen  and  woolen  from  the 
loom;^  the  iron  axe  and  spade; **  the  iron  hatchet  and  adz;" 
the  hammer  and  the  anvil  ;^  the  bellows  and  the  forge  ;^  and 
the  side-hill  furnace  for  smelting  iron  ore,  together  with  a  knowl- 
edge of  iron.  Along  with  the  above-named  acquisitions  must 
be  removed  the  N^offogafmam-^mily;  military  democracies  of 
the  heroic  age;  thebH^r  pha^  of  the  organization  into  gentes 
phratries  and  tribes;  the  agora  or  popular  assembly,  probably; 
a  knowledge  of  individual  property  in  houses  and  lands;  and 
the  advanced  form  of  municipal  life  in  fortified  cities.  When 
this  has  been  done,  the  highest  class  of  barbarians  will  have 
surrendered  the  principal  portion  of  their  marvelous  works, 
together  with  the  mental  and  moral  growth  thereby  acquired. 
From  this  point  backward  through  the  Middle  Period  of  bar- 
barism the  indications  become  less  distinct,  and  the  relative 
order  in  which  institutions,  inventions  and  discoveries  appeared 
is  less  clear;  but  we  are  not  without  some  knowledge  to  guide 
our  steps  even  in  these  distant  ages  of  the  Aryan  family.  For 
reasons  previously  stated,  other  families,  besides  the  Aryan, 
may  now  be  resorted  to  for  the  desired  information. 

*  Spear  iyxoi. — //.,  xv,  712;  xvi,  140:  shield  of  Achilles  6dK0'3. — //.,  xviii, 
478,  609:  round  shield  ci6itii. — //.,  xiii,  611. 

*  Sword  ^i(po<. — //.,  vii,  303 ;  xi,  29 :  silver-studded  sword  ^icpoi  dpyvpoi]- 
Xov. — //.,  vii,  303:  the  sword  q)d6yavov. — //.,  xxiii,  807;  xv,  713:  a  double- 
edged  sword  aiJ.q)7]>c£i  q)d6yavov. — //.,  x,  256. 

3  Wine  oivoi. — //.,  viii,  506:  sweet  wine  ju£Xi7/8ea  oivov. — //.,  x,  579. 
■*  Potter's  wheel  rpoxo?. — //.,  xviii,  600:  hand-mill  for  grinding  grain  jicvXo?. 
— Od.,  vii,  104;  XX,  106. 

5  Linen  Xi?. — //.,  xviii,  352 ;  xxiii,  254:  linen  corselet  XivoQoSpr]c,- — -^^m  ii>  529  : 
robe  of  Minerva  TtEitXoi. — //.,  v,  734:  tunic  ;(;zr(ij>'. — //.,  x,  131 :  woolen  cloak 
XXaXva. — //.,  x,  133;  xxiv,  280:  rug  or  coverlet  rditTji. — //.,  xxiv,  280,  645: 
mat  pfjyo<>. — //.,  xxiv,  644:  veil  xpTJdejuvov. — //.,  xxii,  470. 

6  Axe  TteXXexvi. — //.,  iii,  60;  xxiii,  114,  875:  spade  or  mattock  judHeXXov 
— //.,  xxi,  259. 

^  Hatchet  or  battle-axe  d^ivrj. — //.,  xiii,  612;  xv,  711:  knife /<aja?pa. — //., 
xi,  844;  xix,  252:  chip-axe  or  adz  dxsTtapvov. — Od.,  v,  273. 

'Hammer  paidrrfp. — //.,  xviii,  477:  anvil  aHjuoov. — //.,  xviii,  476:  tongs 
Ttvpdypa. — //.,  xviii,  477. 

3  Bellows  <pv6a. — //.,  xviii,  372,  468:  furnace,  the  boshes  xoocvo<^. — //.,  xviii, 
470. 


34 


ANCIENT  SOCIETY. 


Entering  next  the  Middle  Period,  let  us,  in  like  manner, 
strike  out  of  human  experience  the  process  of  making  bronze; 
flocks  and  herds  of  domestic  animals;^  communal  houses  with 
walls  of  adobe,  and  of  dressed  stone  laid  in  courses  with  mortar 
of  lime  and  sand;  cyclopean  walls;  lake  dwellings  constructed  on 
piles;  the  knowledge  of  native  metals,^  with  the  use  of  charcoal 
and  the  crucible  for  melting  them;  the  copper  axe  and  chisel;  the 
shuttle  and  embryo  loom;  cultivation  by  irrigation,  causeways, 
reservoirs  and  irrigating  canals;  paved  roads;  osier  suspension 
bridges;  personal  gods,  with  a  priesthood  distinguished  by  a 
costume,  and  organized  in  a  hierarchy;  human  sacrifices;  mili- 
tary democracies  of  the  Aztec  type;  woven  fabrics  of  cotton 
and  other  vegetable  fibre  in  the  Western  hemisphere,  and  of 
wool  and  flax  in  the  Eastern;  ornamental  pottery;  the  sword 
of  wood,  with  the  edges  pointed  with  flints;  polished  flint  and 
stone  implements;  a  knowledge  of  cotton  and  flax;  and  the 
domestic  animals. 
\- -The  aggregate  of  achievements  in  this  period  was  less  than 
in  that  which  followed;  but  in  its  relations  to  the  sum  of  hu- 
man progress  it  was  very  great.  It  includes  the  domestication 
of  animals  in  the  Eastern  hemisphere,  which  introduced  in  time 
a  permanent  meat  and  milk  subsistence,  and  ultimately  field 
agriculture;  and  also  inaugurated  those  experiments  with  the 
native  metals  which   resulted    in  producing   bronze,^  as   well 

'  Horse  'iitito'i. — //.,  xi,  6So :  distinguished  into  breeds  :  Thracian. — //.,  x,  588 ; 
Trojan,  v,  265  :  Erechthomus  owned  three  thousand  mares  rpidxi^ioci  iitTtoi. — 
//.,  XX,  221 :  collars,  bridles  and  reins. — //.,  xix,  339:  ass  ovoi. — //.,  xi,  558: 
mule  r/fitovoZ. — //.,  x,  352;  vii,  333:  ox  fiovi. — //.,  xi,  678;  viii,  333:  bull 
Tavpo<i\  cow  ftovi. — Od.,  xx,  251 :  goat  ai%. — //.,  xi,  679:  dog  hvoov. — v, 
476 ;  viii,  338 ;  xxii,  509  :  sheep  oH. — //.,  xi,  678 :  boar  or  sow  6vi. — //.,  xi,  679 ; 
viii,  338 :  milk  yXdyvi. — //.,  xvi,  643  :  pails  full  of  milk  itEpiyXayiaZ  TtiXXai. 
— //.,  xvi,  642. 

^  Homer  mentions  the  native  metals ;  but  they  were  known  long  before  his  time, 
:  and  before  iron.  The  use  of  charcoal  and  the  crucible  in  melting  them  prepared 
the  way  for  smelting  iron  ore.  Gold  xP^do?. — Iliad,  ii,  229:  silver  apyvpol. 
— //.,  xviii,  475 :  copper,  called  brass  ;<;aA?<o'S. — //.,iii,  229;  xviii,  460:  tin,  possi- 
bly pewter,  KaddevipoZ. — //.,  xi,  25;  xx,  271 ;  xxi,  292:  lead  juoXi^oi. — //.,  ii, 
,  237  :  iron  di8r]poi. — //.,  vii,  473  :  iron  axle-tree. — //.,  v,  723 :  iron  club. — //.,  vii, 
.141  :  iron  wagon-tire. — //.,  xxiii,  505. 

3  The  researches  of  Beckmann  have  left  a  doubt  upon  the  existence  of  a  true 
bronze  earlier  than  a  knowledge  of  iron  among  the  Greeks  and  Latins.  He  thinks 
.  electrtun,  mentioned  in  the  Iliad,  was  a  mixture  of  gold  and  silver  {^History  of  In- 


RA  TIO  OF  HUMAN  PROGRESS.  3  5 

as  prepared  the  way  for  the  higher  process  of  smelting  iron 
ore.  In  the  Western  hemisphere  it  was  signahzed  by  the  dis- 
covery and  treatment  of  the  native  metals,  which  resulted  in 
the  production  independently  of  bronze;  by  the  introduction 
of  irrigation  in  the  cultivation  of  maize  and  plants,  and  by  the 
use  of  adobe-brick  and  stone  in  the  construction  of  great  joint 
tenement  houses  in  the  nature  of  fortresses. 

Resuming  the  retrospect  and  entering  the  Older  Period  of 
barbarism,  let  us  next  remove  from  human  acquisitions  the  con- 
federacy, based  upon  gentes,  phratries  and  tribes  under  the 
government  of  a  council  of  chiefs  which  gave  a  more  highly 
organized  state  of  society  than  before  that  had  been  known. 
Also  the  discovery  and  cultivation  of  maize  and  the  bean, 
squash  and  tobacco,  in  the  Western  hemisphere,  together  with 
a  knowledge  of  farinaceous  food;  finger  weaving  with  warp 
and  woof;  the  kilt,  moccasin  and  leggin  of  tanned  deer-skin; 
the  blow-gun  for  bird  shooting;  the  village  stockade  for  de- 
fense; tribal  games;  element  worship,  with  a  vague  recognition 
of  the  Great  Spirit;  cannibalism  in  time  of  war;  and  lastly, 
the  art  of  pottery. 

As  we  ascend  in  the  order  of  time  and  of  development,  but 
descend  in  the  scale  of  human  advancement,  inventions  become 
more  simple,  and  more  direct  in  their  relations  to  primary 
wants;  and  institutions  approach  nearer  and  nearer  to  the  ele- 
mentary form  of  a  gens  composed  of  consanguine!,  under  a 
chief  of  their  own  election,  and  to  the  tribe  composed  of  kindred 
gentes,  under  the  government  of  a  council  of  chiefs.  The 
condition  of  Asiatic  and  European  tribes  in  this  period,  (for  the 

ventions,  Bohn's  ed.,  ii,  212);  and  that  the  stanniim  of  the  Romans,  which  con- 
sisted of  silver  and  lead,  was  the  same  as  the  kassiteron  of  Homer  (7(5.,  ii,  217). 
This  word  has  usually  been  interpreted  as  tin.  In  commenting  upon  the  compo- 
sition called  bronze,  he  remarks :  "In  my  opinion  the  greater  part  of  these  things 
were  made  of  staimitm,  properly  so  called,  which  by  the  admixture  of  the  noble 
metals,  and  some  difficulty  of  fusion,  was  rendered  fitter  for  use  than  pure  copper." 
{lb.,  ii,  213).  These  observations  were  hmited  to  the  nations  of  the  Mediterra- 
nean, within  whose  areas  tin  was  not  produced.  Axes,  knives,  razors,  swords, 
daggers,  and  personal  ornaments  discovered  in  Switzerland,  Austria,  Denmark, 
and  other  parts  of  Northern  Europe,  have  been  found,  on  analysis,  composed  of 
copper  and  tin,  and  therefore  fall  under  the  strict  definition  of  bronze.  They  were 
also  found  in  relations  indicating  priority  to  iron. 


36  ANCIENT  SOCIETY. 

Aryan  and  Semitic  families  did  not  probably  then  exist),  is 
substantially  lost.  It  is  represented  by  the  remains  of  ancient 
art  between  the  invention  of  pottery  and  the  domestication  of 
animals;  and  includes  the  people  who  formed  the  shell-heaps 
on  the  coast  of  the  Baltic,  who  seem  to  have  domesticated  the 
dog,  but  no  other  animals. 

In  any  just  estimate  of  the  magnitude  of  the  achievements 
of  mankind  in  the  three  sub-periods  of  barbarism,  they  must 
be  regarded  as  immense,  not  only  in  number  and  in  intrinsic 
value,  but  also  in  the  mental  and  moral  development  by  which 
they  were  necessarily  accompanied. 

Ascending  next  through  the  prolonged  period  of  savagery, 
let  us  strike  out  of  human  knowledge  th^_organization  into 
gentes^ phratries  and  tribes;  th«  jyriHyasmian  family;  the  wor- 
ship of  the  elements  in  its  lowest  form;  syllabical  language; 
the  bow  and  arrow;  stone  and  bone  implements;  cane  and 
splint  baskets;  skin  garments;  the  punaluan  family;  the  or- 
ganization upon  the  basis  of  sex;  the  village,  consisting  of 
clustered  houses;  boat  craft,  including  the  bark  and  dug-out 
canoe;  the  spear  pointed  with  flint,  and  the  war  club;  flint  im- 
plements of  the  ruder  kinds;  the  consanguine  family;  mono- 
syllabical  language;  fetishism;  cannibalism;  a  knowledge  of 
the  use  of  fire;  and  lastly,  gesture  language.^     When  this  work 

1  The  origin  of  language  has  been  investigated  far  enough  to  find  the  grave  diffi- 
culties in  the  way  of  any  solution  of  the  problem.  It  seems  to  have  been  abandoned, 
by  common  consent,  as  an  unprofitable  subject.  It  is  more  a  question  of  the  laws  of 
human  development  and  of  the  necessary  operations  of  the  mental  principle,  than 
of  the  materials  of  language.  Lucretius  remarks  that  with  sounds  and  with  gest- 
ure, mankind  in  the  primitive  period  intimated  their  thoughts  stammeringly  to 
each  other  (Vocibus,  et  gestu,  cum  balbe  significarent. — v,  1021).  He  assumes 
that  thought  preceded  speech,  and  that  gesture  language  preceded  articulate  lan- 
guage. Gesture  or  sign  language  seems  to  have  been  primitive,  the  elder  sister 
of  articulate  speech.  It  is  still  the  universal  language  of  barbarians,  if  not  of  sav- 
ages, in  their  mutual  intercourse  when  their  dialects  are  not  the  same.  The  Amer- 
ican aborigines  have  developed  such  a  language,  thus  showing  that  one  may  be 
formed  adequate  for  general  intercourse.  As  used  by  them  it  is  both  graceful  and 
expressive,  and  affords  pleasure  in  its  use.  It  is  a  language  of  natural  symbols, 
and  therefore  possesses  the  elements  of  a  universal  language.  A  sign  language  is 
easier  to  invent  than  one  of  sounds ;  and,  since  it  is  mastered  with  greater  facility, 
a  presumption  arises  that  it  preceded  articulate  speech.  The  sounds  of  the  voice 
would  first  come  in,  on  this  hypothesis,  in  aid  of  gesture ;  and  as  they  gradually 
assumed  a  conventional  signification,  they  would  supersede,  to  that  extent,  the  Ian- 


RATIO  OF  HUMAN  PROGRESS.  37 

of  elimination  has  been  done  in  the  order  in  which  these  sev- 
eral acquisitions  were  made,  w'e  shall  have  approached  quite 
near  the  infantile  period  of  man's  existence,  when  mankind 
were  learning  the  use  of  fire,  which  rendered  possible  a  fish 
subsistence  and  a  change  of  habitat,  and  when  they  were  at- 
tempting the  formation  of  articulate  language.  In  a  condition 
so  absolutely  primitive,  man  is  seen  to  be  not  only  a  child  in 
the  scale  of  humanity,  but  possessed  of  a  brain  into  which  not 
a  thought  or  conception  expressed  by  these  institutions  inven- 
tions and  discoveries  had  penetrated; — in  a  word,  he  stands  at 
the  bottom  of  the  scale,  but  potentially  all  he  has  since  be- 
come. 

With  the  production  of  inventions  and  discoveries,  and  with 
the  grd\\i:h  of  institutions,  the  human  mind  necessarily  grew 
and  expanded ;  and  we  are  led  to  recognize  a  gradual  enlarge^ 
ment  of  the  brain  itself,  particularly  of  the  cerebral  portion. 
The  slowness  of  this  mental  growth  was  inevitable,  in  the 
period  of  savagery,  from  the  extreme  difficulty  of  compassing 
the  simplest  invention  out  of  nothing,  or  with  next  to  nothing 
to  assist  mental  effort;  and  of  discovering  any  substance  or 
force  in  nature  available  in  such  a  rude  condition  of  life.  It 
was  not  less  difficult  to  organize  the  simplest  form  of  society 
out  of  such  savage  and  intractable  materials.  The  first  inven- 
tions and  the  first  social  organizations  were  doubtless  the 
hardest  to  achieve,  and  were  consequently  separated  from  each 
other  by  the  longest  intervals  of  time.  A  striking  illustration 
is  found  in  the  successive  forms  of  the  family.  In  this  law  ofi 
progress,  which  works  in  a  geometrical  ratio,  a  sufficient  ex- 

guage  of  signs,  or  become  incorporated  in  it.  It  would  also  tend  to  develop  the 
capacity  of  the  vocal  organs.  No  proposition  can  be  plainer  than  that  gesture  has 
attended  articulate  language  from  its  birth.  It  is  still  inseparable  from  it;  and 
may  embody  the  remains,  by  survival,  of  an  ancient  mental  habit.  If  language 
were  perfect,  a  gesture  to  lengthen  out  or  emphasize  its  meaning  would  be  a  fault. 
As  we  descend  through  the  gradations  of  language  into  its  ruder  forms,  the  gest- 
ure element  increases  in  the  quantity  and  variety  of  its  forms  until  we  find  lan- 
guage so  dependent  upon  gestures  that  without  them  they  would  be  substantially 
unintelligible.  Growing  up  and  flourishing  side  by  side  through  savagery,  and  far 
into  the  period  of  barbarism,  they  remain,  in  modified  forms,  indissolubly  united. 
Those  who  are  curious  to  solve  the  problem  of  the  origin  of  language  would  do 
well  to  look  to  the  possible  suggestions  from  gesture  language. 


91U22 


38  .    ANCIENT  SOCIETY. 

planation  is  found  of  the  prolonged  duration  of  the  period  of 
savagery.  • 

That  the  early  condition  of  mankind  was  substantially  as 
above  indicated  is  not  exclusively  a  recent,  nor  even  a  modern 
opinion.  Some  of  the  ancient  poets  and  philosophers  recog- 
nized the  fact,  that  mankind  commenced  in  a  state  of  extreme 
rudeness  from  which  they  had  risen  by  slow  and  successive 
steps.  They  also  perceived  that  the  course  of  their  develop- 
ment was  registered  by  a  progressive  series  of  inventions  and 
discoveries,  but  without  noticing  as  fully  the  more  conclusive 
argument  from  social  institutions. 

The  important  question  of  the  ratio  of  this  progress,  which 
has  a  direct  bearing  upon  the  relative  length  of  the  several 
ethnical  periods,  now  presents  itself.  Human  progress,  from 
first  to  last,  has  been  in  a  ratio  not  rigorously  but  essentially 
geometrical.  This  is  plain  on  the  face  of  the  facts;  and  it 
could  not,  theoretically,  have  occurred  in  any  other  way. 
Every  item  of  absolute  knowledge  gained  became  a  factor  in 
further  acquisitions,  until  the  present  complexity  of  knowledge 
was  attained.  Consequently,  while  progress  was  slowest  in 
time  in  the  first  period,  and  most  rapid  in  the  last,  the  relative 
amount  may  have  been  greatest  in  the  first,  when  the  achieve- 
ments of  either  period  are  considered  in  their  relations  to  the 
sum.  It  may  be  suggested,  as  not  improbable  of  ultimate 
recognition,  that  the  progress  of  mankind  in  the  period  of 
savagery,  in  its  relations  to  the  sum  of  human  progress,  was 
greater  in  degree  than  it  was  afterwards  in  the  three  sub-periods 
of  barbarism;  and  that  the  progress  made  in  the  whole  period 
of  barbarism  was,  in  like  manner,  greater  in  degree  than  it  has  • 
been  since  in  the  entire  period  of  civilization. 

What  may  have  been  the  relative  length  of  these  ethnical 
periods  is  also  a  fail-  subject  of  speculation.  An  exact  measure 
is  not  attainable,  but  an  approximation  may  be  attempted. 
On  the  theory  of  geometrical  progression,  the  period  of  savage- 
ry was  necessarily  longer  in  duration  than  the  period  of  barbar- 
ism, as  the  latter  was  longer  than  the  period  of  civilization.  If 
we  assume  a  hundred  thousand  years  as  the  measure  of  man's 
existence  upon  the  earth  in  order  to  find  the  relative  length  of 


RATIO  OF  HUxMAN  PROGRESS.  39 

each  period, — and  for  this  purpose,  it  may  have  been  longer  or 
shorter, — it  will  be  seen  at  once  that  at  least  sixty  thousand 
years  must  be  assigned  to  the  period  of  savagery.  Three-fifths 
of  the  life  of  the  most  advanced  portion  of  the  human  race,  on 
this  apportionment,  were  spent  in  savagery.  Of  the  remaining 
years,  twenty  thousand,  or  one-fifth,  should  be  assigned  to  the 
Older  Period  of  barbarism.  For  the  Middle  and  Later  Periods 
there  remain  fifteen  thousand  years,  leaving  five  thousand, 
more  or  less,  for  the  period  of  civilization. 

The  relative  length  of  the  period  of  savagery  is  more  likely 
under  than  over  stated.  Without  discussing  the  principles  on 
which  this  apportionment  is  made,  it  may  be  remarked  that  in 
addition  to  the  argument  from  the  geometrical  progression 
under  which  human  development  of  necessity  has  occurred,  a 
graduated  scale  of  progress  has  been  universally  observed  in 
remains  of  ancient  art,  and  this  will  be  found  equally  true  of 
institutions.  It  is  a  conclusion  of  deep  importance  in  ethnology 
that  the  experience  of  mankind  in  savagery  was  longer  in  dura- 
tion than  all  their  subsequent  experience,  and  that  the  period 
of  civilization  covers  but  a  fragment  of  the  life  of  the  race. 

Two  families  of  mankind,  the  Aryan  and  Semitic,  by  thel; 
commingling  of  diverse  stocks,  superiority-  of  subsistence    orU 
advantage  of  position,  and  possibly  from  all  together,  were  the' 
first  to  emerge  from  barbarism.     They  were  substantially  the 
founders  of  civilization.^     But  their  existence  as  distinct  fami- 
lies was  undoubtedly,  in  a  comparative  sense,   a   late  event. 
Their  progenitors  are    lost   in  the  undistinguishable    mass  of 
earlier  barbarians.     The   first   ascertained   appearance   of  the 
Aryan  family  was  in  connection  with  the  domestic  animals,  at 
which  time  they  were  one  people  in  language  and  nationality. 
It  is  not  probable   that   the   Aryan  or  Semitic  families  were 
developed  into  individuality  earlier  than  the  commencement 
of  the  Middle  Period  of  barbarism,  and. that  their  differentiation    -"'' 
from  the  mass  of  barbarians  occurred  through  their  acquisition 
of  the  domestic  animals. 

The  most  advanced  portion  of  the  human  race  were  halted,  \1 
so  to  express  it,  at  certain  stages  of  progress,  until  some  great  <> 
1  The  Egyptians  are  supposed  to  affiliate  remotely  with  the  Semitic  family. 


40 


ANCIENT  SOCIETY. 


f  invention  or  discovery,  such  as  the  domestication  of  animals 
\    or  the  smehing  of  iron  ore,  gave  a  new  and  powerful  impulse 
\   forward.     While  thus  restrained,  the  ruder  tribes,  continually- 
advancing,  approached  in  different  degrees  of  nearness  to  the 
same  status;   for  wherever  a  continental  connection  existed, all 
i  '^the  tribes  must  have  shared  in  some  measure  in  each  other's 
progress.      All  great  inventions  and  discoveries  propagate  them- 
selves; but  the  inferior  tribes  must  have  appreciated  their  value 
before  they  could  appropriate  them.      In  the  continental  areas 
certain  tribes  would  lead;  but  the  leadership  would  be  apt  tq 
shift  a  number  of  times  in  the  course  of  an  ethnical  period. 
The  destruction  of  the  ethnic  bond  and  life  of  particular  tribes, 
followed  by  their  decadence,  must  have  arrested  for  a  time,  in 
many  instances  and  in  all  periods,  the  upward  flow  of  human 
progress.     From  the  Middle  Period  of  barbarism,  however,  the 
Aryan  and  Semitic  families  seem  fairly  to  represent  the  central 
"  threads  of  this  progress,  which  in  the  period  of  civilization  has 
been  gradually  assumed  by  the  Aryan  family  alone. 

The  truth  of  this  general  position  may  be  illustrated  by  the 
condition  of  the  American  aborigines  at  the  epoch  of  their 
discovery.  They  commenced  their  career  on  the  American 
continent  in  savagery;  and,  although  possessed  of  inferior 
'  mental  endo^ymeftts,  the  body  of  thenTTiad  emerged  from 
savagery  and  attained  to  the  Lower  Status  of  barbarism; 
whilst  a  portion  of  them,  the  Village  Indians  of  North  and  South 
America,  had  risen  to  the  Middle  Status.  They  had  domesti- 
cated the  llama,  the  only  quadruped  native  to  the  continent 
which  promised  usefulness  in  the  domesticated  state,  and  had 
produced  bronze  by  alloying  copper  with  tin.  They  needed 
but  one  invention,  and  that  the  greatest,  the  art  of  smelting 
iron  ore,  to  advance  themselves  into  the  Upper  Status.  Con- 
sidering the  absence  of  all  connection  with  the  most  advanced 
portion  of  the  human  family  in  the  Eastern  hemisphere,  their 
progress  in  unaided  self- development  from  the  savage  state 
must  be  accounted  remarkable.  While  the  Asiatic  and  Eu- 
ropean were  waiting  patiently  for  the  boon  of  iron  tools,  the 
American  Indian  was  drawing  near  to  the  possession  of  bronze, 
which  stands  next  to  iron  in  the  order  of  time.      During  this 


RATIO  OF  HUMAN  PROGRESS.  4 1 

period  of  arrested  progress  in  the  Eastern  hemisphere,  the 
American  aborigines  advanced  themselves,  not  to  the  status  in 
which  they  were  found,  but  sufficiently  near  to  reach  it  while 
the  former  were  passing  through  the  last  period  of  barbarism, 
and  the  first  four  thousand  years  of  civilization.  It  gives  us  a 
measure  of  the  length  of  time  they  had  fallen  behind  the  Aryan 
family  in  the  race  of  progress:  namely  the  duration  of  the 
Later  Period  of  barbarism,  to  which  the  years  of  civilization 
must  be  added.  The  Aryan  and  Ganowanian  families  to- 
gether exemplify  the  entire  experience  of  man  in  five  ethnical 
periods,  with  the  exception  of  the  first  portion  of  the  Later 
Period  of  savagery. 

Savagery  was  the  formative  period  of  the  human  race.  ^^ 
Commencing  at  zero  in  knowledge  and  experience,  without 
fire,  without  articulate  speech  and  without  arts,  our  savage 
progenitors  fought  the  great  battle,  first  for  existence,  and  then 
for  progress,  until  they  secured  safety  from  ferocious  animals, 
and  permanent  subsistence!  Out  of  these  efforts  there  came 
gradually  a  developed  speech,  and  the  occupation  of  the  entire 
surface  of  the  earth.  But  society  from  its  rudeness  was  still 
incapable  of  organization  in  numbers.  When  the  most  ad- 
vanced portion  of  mankind  had  emerged  from  savagery,  and 
entered  the  Lower  Status  of  barbarism,  the  entire  population 
of  the  earth  must  have  been  small  in  numbers.  The  earliest 
inventions  were  the  most  difficult  to  accomplish  because  of  the 
feebleness  of  the  power'of  abstract  reasoning.  Each  substan- 
tial item  of  knowledge  gained  would  form  a  basis  for  further 
advancement;  but  this  must  have  been  nearly  imperceptible 
for  ages  upon  ages,  the  obstacles  to  progress  nearly  balancing 
the  energies  arrayed  against  them.  The  achievements  of 
savagery  are  not  particularly  remarkable  in  character,  but 
they  represent  an  amazing  amount  of  persistent  labor  with 
feeble  means  continued  through  long  periods  of  time  before 
reaching  a  fair  degree  of  completeness.  The  bow  and  arrow- 
afford  an  illustration. 

The  inferiority  of  savage  man  in  the  mental  and  moral 
scale,  undeveloped,  inexperienced,  and  held  down  by  his  low 
animal  appetites  and  passions,  though  reluctantly  recognized. 


42 


ANCIENT  SOCIETY. 


is,  nevertheless,  substantially  demonstrated  by  the  remains  of 
ancient  art  in  flint  stone  and  bone  implements,  by  his  cave  life 
in  certain  areas,  and  by  his  osteological  remains.  It  is  still  fur- 
ther illustrated  by  the  present  condition  of  tribes  of  savages  in 
a  low  state  of  development,  left  in  isolated  sections  of  the 
earth  as  monuments  of  the  past.  And  yet  to  this  great  period 
of  savagery  belongs  the  formation  of  articulate  language  and 
its  advancement  to  the  syllabical  stage,  the  establishment  of 
two  forms  of  the  family,  and  possibly  a  third,  and  the  organi- 
zation into  gentes  which  gave  the  first  form  of  society  worthy 
of  the  name.  All  these  conclusions  are  involved  in  the  propo- 
sition, stated  at  the  outset,  that  mankind  commenced  their 
career  at  the  bottom  of  the  scale;  which  "modern  science  claims 
to  be  proving  by  the  most  careful  and  exhaustive  study  of  man 
^  and  his  works."  ^ 
\^  In  like  manner,  the  great  period  of  barbarism  was  signaHzed 
by  four  events  of  pre-eminent  importance:  namely,  the  do- 
mestication of  animals.'^ie  discovery  of  the  cereals,  4he  use  of 
stone  in  architecture,  ^nd  the  invention  of  the  process  of  smelt- 
ing iron  ore.  Commencing  probably  with  the  dog  as  a  com- 
panion in  the  hunt,  followed  at  a  later  period  by  the  capture  of 
the  young  of  other  animals  and  rearing  them,  not  unlikely, 
from  the  merest  freak  of  fancy,  it  required  time  and  experience 
to  discover  the  utility  of  each,  to  find  means  of  raising  them  in 
numbers  and  to  learn  the  forbearance  necessary  to  spare  them 
in  the  face  of  hunger.  Could  the  special  history  of  the  domes- 
tication of  each  animal  be  known,  it  would  exhibit  a  series  of 
marvelous  facts.  The  experiment  carried,  locked  up  in  its 
doubtful  chances,  much  of  the  subsequent  destiny  of  mankind. 
Secondly,  the  acquisition  of  farinaceous  food  by  cultivation 
must  be  regarded  as  one  of  the  greatest  events  in  human  expe- 
rience. It  was  less  essential  in  the  Eastern  hemisphere,  after  the 
domestication  of  animals,  than  in  the  Western,  where  it  became 
the  instrument  of  advancing  a  large  portion  of  the  American 
aborigines  into  the  Lower,  and  another  portion  into  the  Mid- 
dle Status  of  barbarism.  If  mankind  had  never  advanced  be- 
yond this  last  condition,  they  had  the  means  of  a  comparatively 

'Whitney's  Oriental  and  Linguistic  Studies,  p.  341. 


RA  TIO  OF  HUMAN  PROGRESS.  43 

easy  and  enjoyable  life.  Thirdly,  with  the  use  of  adobe-brick 
and  of  stone  in  house  building,  an  improved  mode  of  life  was  in- 
troduced, eminently  calculated  to  stimulate  the  mental  capaci- 
ties, and  to  create  the  habit  of  industry, — the  fertile  source  of  im- 
provements. (But,  in  its  relations  to  the  high  career  of  mankind, 
the  fourth  invention  must  be  held  the  greatest  event  in  human 
experience,  preparatory  to  civilization.  ^  When  the  barbarian, 
advancing  step  by  step,  had  discovered  the  native  metals,  and 
learned  to  melt  them  in  the  crucible  and  to  cast  them  in 
moulds;  when  he  had  alloyed  native  copper  with  tin  and  pro- 
duced bronze;  and,  finally,  when  by  a  still  greater  effort  of 
thought  he  had  invented  the  furnace,  and  produced  iron  from 
the  ore,  nine-tenths  of  the  battle  for  civilization  was  gained.^ 
Furnished  with  iron  tools,  capable  of  holding  both  an  edge  and 
a  point,  mankind  were  certain  of  attaining  to  civilization.  The 
production  of  iron  was  the  event  of  events  in  human  experi- 
ence, without  a  parallel,  and  without  an  equal,  beside  which 
all  other  inventions  and  discoveries  were  inconsiderable,  or  at 
least  subordinate.  Out  of  it  came  the  metallic  hammer  and 
anvil,  the  axe  and  the  chisel,  the  plow  with  an  iron  point,  the 
iron  sword;  in  fine,  the  basis  of  civilization,  which  may  be  said 
to  rest  upon  this  metal.  The  want  of  iron  tools  arrested  the 
progress  of  mankind  in  barbarism.  There  they  would  have 
remained  to  the  present  hour,  had  they  failed  to  bridge  the 
chasm.  It  seems  probable  that  the  conception  and  the  process 
of  smelting  iron  ore  came  but  once  to  man.  It  would  be  a 
singular  satisfaction  could  it  be  known  to  what  tribe  and  family 
we  are  indebted  for  this  knowledge,  and  with  it  for  civilization. 

*  M.  Quiquerez,  a  Swiss  engineer,  discovered  in  the  canton  of  Berne  the  re- 
mains of  a  number  of  side-hill  furnaces  for  smelting  iron  ore ;  together  with  tools, 
fragments  of  iron  and  charcoal.  To  construct  one,  an  excavation  was  made  in 
the  side  of  a  hill  in  which  a  bosh  was  formed  of  clay,  with  a  chimney  in  the  form 
of  a  dome  above  it  to  create  a  draft.  No  evidence  was  found  of  the  use  of  the 
bellows.  The  boshes  seem  to  have  been  charged  with  alternate  layers  of  pulverized 
ore  and  charcoal,  combustion  being  sustained  by  fanning  the  flames.  The  result 
was  a  spongy  mass  of  partly  fused  ore  which  was  afterwards  welded  into  a  com- 
pact mass  by  hammering.  A  deposit  of  charcoal  was  found  beneath  a  bed  of  peat 
twenty  feet  in  thickness.  It  is  not  probable  that  these  furnaces  were  coeval  with 
the  knowledge  of  smelting  iron  ore;  but  they  were,  not  unhkely,  close  copies 
of  the  original  furnace. — Vide  Figuier's  Primitive  Man,  Putnam's  ed.,  p.  301. 


44 


ANCIENT  SOCIETY. 


The  Semitic  family  were  then  in  advance  of  the  Aryan,  and  in 
the  lead  of  the  human  race.  They  gave  the  phonetic  alphabet 
to  mankind  and  it  seems  not  unlikely  the  knowledge  of  iron  as 
well. 

At  the  epoch  of  the  Homeric  poems,  the  Grecian  tribes  had 
made  immense  material  progress.  All  the  common  metals 
were  known,  including  the  process  of  smelting  ores,  and  possi- 
bly of  changing  iron  into  steel;  the  principal  cereals  had  been 
discovered,  together  with  the  art  of  cultivation,  and  the  use  of 
the  plow  in  field  agriculture;  the  dog,  the  horse,  the  ass,  the 
cow,  the  sow,  the  sheep  and  the  goat  had  been  domesticated 
and  reared  in  flocks  and  herds,  as  has  been  shown.  Architect- 
ure had  produced  a  house  constructed  of  durable  materials, 
containing  separate  apartments,^  and  consisting  of  more  than  a 
single  story  ;^  ship  building,  weapons,  textile  fabrics,  the  man- 
ufacture of  wine  from  the  grape,  the  cultivation  of  the  apple, 
the  pear,  the  olive  and  the  fig,^  together  with  comfortable  ap- 
parel, and  useful  implements  and  utensils,  had  been  produced 
and  brought  into  human  use.*     But  the  early  history  of  man- 

'  Palace  of  Priam. — //.,  vi,  242. 

*  House  of  Ulysses. — Od.,  xvi,  448.  *  Od.,  vii,  115. 

*  In  addition  to  the  articles  enumerated  in  the  previous  notes  the  following  may 
be  added  from  the  Iliad  as  further  illustrations  of  the  progress  then  made :  The 
shuttle  mpuiZ. — xxii,  448 :  the  loom  idro?. — xxii,  44D :  a  woven  fillet  TtXEHVi) 
(X  vaSe6i.n]. — xxii,  469 :  silver  basin  apyvpsa  Tiptjrijp. — xxiii,  741 :  goblet,  or 
drinking  cup  dsTta's. — xxiv,  285:  golden  goblet  XP^<^£ov  dertai. — xxiv,  285: 
basket,  made  of  reeds,  Hctveov. — xxiv,  626:  ten  talents  in  gold  xpovdov  Sexa 
Ttdvra.  rdXavra. — xix,  247:  a  harp  (p6pi.ny^. — ix,  1S6,  and  xiOapa. — xiii, 
731 :  a  shepherd's  pipe  6vpiyc,. — xviii,  526:  sickle,  or  pruning  knife,  dpsTtavrj. 
— xviii,  551 :  fowler's  net  Ttccvaypoi-i. — v,  487:  mesh  of  a  net  dipi?. — v,  487: 
a  bridge  yecpvpa. — v,  89:  also  a  dike. — xxi,  245:  rivets  Se'djiiot. — xviii,  379: 
the  bean  xva/iioi. — xiii,  589 :  the  pea  kpefiivOoi. — xiii,  5S9  :  the  onion  npojuvov. 
— xi,  630:  the  grape  dracpvXTJ. — xviii,  561:  a  vineyard  dXooij. — xviii,  561: 
wine  oivo?. — viii,  506;  x,  579:  the  tripod  rpiTCovi. — ix,  122:  a  copper  boiler 
or  caldron  Ae'/J^?. — ix,  123:  a.hY00c\i  everi]. — xiv,  180  :  ezx -ring  r pi yXTjyoi. — 
xiv,  183:  a  sandal  or  buskin  TtediXov. — xiv,  186:  leather  pivoi. — xvi,  636:  a 
gate  TtvXrj. — xxi,  537:  bolt  for  fastening  gate  oj£i;'?. — xxi,  537.  And  in  the  Odys- 
sey :  a  silver  basin  dpyvpsiov  Xefjij'i. — i,  137:  a  table  rpaTte^a. — i,  138: 
golden  cups  xpvdeia  xvTCeXXa. — Od.,  i,  142  :  rye  or  spelt  ^£Z«'. — iv,  41  :  a  bath- 
ing tub  dddjiiivOo's. — iv,  48:  cheese  Tvpo?:  milk  ydXa. — iv,  88:  distaff  or 
spindle  T/AaHofr?;. — iv,  131;  vii,  105;  xvii,  97:  silver  basket  dpyvpsoi  rdXa- 
po's. — iv,  125  :  bread  dito?. — iv,  623  ;  xiv,  456:  tables  loaded  with  bread,  meat  and 
wine  Ivisdroi  de  rpditEZ,ai  dirov  xai  Mpszcsv  ijS^  oivov  fisfipiOadiv. — xv. 


RA  TIO  OF  HUMAN  PROGRESS.  45 

kind  was  lost  in  the  oblivion  of  the  ages  that  had  passed  away. 
Tradition  ascended  to  an  anterior  barbarism  through  which  it 
was  unable  to  penetrate.  Language  had  attained  such  devel- 
opment that  poetry  of  the  highest  structural  form  was  about  to 
embody  the  inspirations  of  genius.  (The  closing  period  of  bar- 
barism brought  this  portion  of  the  human  family  to  the  thresh- 
old of  civilization,  animated  by  the  great  attainments  of  the 
past,  grown  hardy  and  intelligent  in  the  school  of  experience, 
and  with  the  undisciplined  imagination  in  the  full  splendor  of 
its  creative  powers.  Barbarism  ends  with  the  production  of 
grand  barbarians.  yWhilst  the  condition  of  society  in  this 
period  was  understood  by  the  later  Greek  and  Roman  writers, 
the  anterior  state,  with  its  distinctive  culture  and  experience, 
was  as  deeply  concealed  from  their  apprehension  as  from  our 
own;  except  as  occupying  a  nearer  stand-point  in  time,  they 
saw  more  distinctly  the  relations  of  the  present  with  the  past. 
It  was  evident  to  them  that  a  certain  sequence  existed  in  the 
series  of  inventions  and  discoveries,  as  well  as  a  certain  order 
of  development  of  institutions,  through  which  mankind  had 
advanced  themselves  from  the  status  of  savagery  to  that  of  the 
Homeric  age;  but  the  immense  interval  of  time  between  the 
two  conditions  does  not  appear  to  have  been  made  a  subject 
even  of  speculative  consideration. 

333:  shuttle  KipKi%. — V,  62:  bed  XsKTpov. — viii,  337:  brazier  pmnging  an  axe 
or  adz  in  cold  water  for  the  purpose  of  tempering  it 

a??  3'  or'  dvr)p  ;i;a/lK£u?  TtsXEKw  /.liyav  t/s  duETtapvov 

Eiv  vSccTi  ipvxp^  liccTtrx}  HEydXa  idxovra 

(pap/udddooy    to  yap  avTE  diS?jpov  ye  xparoi  kdriv. — ix,  391 : 
salt  «!?. — xi,  123;    xxiii,  270 :    bow  TOqov. — xxi,  31,  53:    quiver  yoopvvoi. — 
xxi,  54:  sickle  dpencivrj. — xviii,  368. 


PART    II. 
GROWTH  OF  THE  IDEA  OF  GOVERNMENT. 


CHAPTER     I. 

ORGANIZATION   OF   SOCIETY   UPON   THE   BASIS    OF   SEX. 

Australian  Classes. — Organized  upon  Sex. — Archaic  Character  of 
THE  Organization. — Australian  Gentes. — The  Eight  Classes. — Rule  of 
Marriage. — Descent  in  the  Female  Line. — Stupendous  Conjugal  System. 
— Two  Male  and  Two  Female  Classes  in  each  Gens. — Innovations  upon 
THE  Classes. — Gens  still  Rudimentary. 

In  treating  the  subject  of  the  growth  of  the  idea  of  govern- 
ment, the  organization  into  gentes  on  the  basis  of  kin  natu- 
rally suggests  itself  as  the  archaic  frame- work  of  ancient  so- 
ciety; but  there  is  a  still  older  and  more  arthaic  organization, 
that  into  classes  on  the  basis  of  sex,  which  first  demands  atten- 
tion. It  will  not  be  taken  up  because  of  its  novelty  in  human 
experience,  but  for  the  higher  reason  that  it  seem.s  to  contain  ' 
the  germinal  principle  of  the  gens.  If  this  inference  is  war- 
ranted by  the  facts  it  will  give  to  this  organization  into  male 
and  female  classes,  now  found  in  full  vitality  among  the  Aus- 
tralian aborigines,  an  ancient  prevalence  as  wide  spread,  in  the 
tribes  of  mankind,  as  the  original  organization  into  gentes. 

It  will  soon  be  perceived  that  low  down  in  savagery  com- 
munity of  husbands  and  wives,  within  prescribed  limits,  was 
the  central  principle  of  the  social  system.  The  marital  rights  V 
and  privileges,  (jura  conjiigialia})  established  in  the  group, 
grew  into  a  stupendous  scheme,  which  became  the  organic 
principle  on  which  society  was  constituted.  From  the  nature 
of  the  case  these  rights  and  privileges  rooted  themselves  so 

'  The  Romans  made  a  distinction  between  connubium,  which  related  to  marriage 
considered  as  a  civil  institution,  and  conjugium,  which  was  a  mere  physical  union. 


^O  ANCIENT  SOCIETY. 

firmly  that  emancipation  from  them  was  slowly  accomplished 
through  movements  which  resulted  in  unconscious  reformations. 
Accordingly  it  will  be  found  that  the  family  has  advanced  from 
a  lower  to  a  higher  form  as  the  range  of  this  conjugal  system 
was  gradually  reduced.  The  family,  commencing  in  the  con- 
sanguine, founded  upon  the  intermarriage  of  brothers  and  sis- 
ters in  a  group,  passed  into  the  second  form,  the  punaluan,  un- 
der a  social  system  akin  to  the  Australian  classes,  which'broke 
up  the  first  species  of  marriage  by  substituting  groups  of 
brothers  who  shared  their  wives  in  common,  and  groups  of  sis- 
ters who  shared  their  husbands  in  common, — marriage  in  both 
cases  being  in  the  group.  The  organization  into  classes  upon 
sex,  and  the  subsequent  higher  organisation  into  gentes  upon 
kin,  must  be  regarded  as  the  results  of  great  social  movements 
worked  out  unconsciously  through  natural  selection.  For 
these  reasons  the  Australian  system,  about  to  be  presented,  de- 
serves attentive  consideration,  although  it  carries  us  into  a  low 
grade  of  human  life.  It  represents  a  striking  phase  of  the  an- 
cient social  history  of  our  race. 

The  organization  into  classes  on  the  basis  of  sex,  and  the 
inchoate  organization  into  gentes  on  the  basis  of  kin,  now  pre- 
vail among  that  portion  of  the  Australian  aborigines  who 
speak  the  Kamilaroi  language.  They  inhabit  the  Darling 
River  district  nortli  of  Sydney.  Both  organizations  are  also 
found  in  other  Australian  tribes,  and  so  wide  spread  as  to  ren- 
der probable  their  ancient  universal  prevalence  among  them. 
It  is  evident  from  internal  considerations  that  the  male  and 
female  classes  are  older  than  the  gentes:  firstly,  because  the 
gentile  organization  is  higher  than  that  into  classes;  and  sec- 
ondly, because  the  former,  among  the  Kamilaroi,  are  in  process 
of  overthrowing  the  latter.  The  class  in  its  male  and  female 
branches  is  the  unit  of  their  social  system,  which  place  right- 
fully belongs  to  the  gens  when  in  full  development.  A  re- 
markable combination  of  facts  is  thus  presented;  namely,  a 
sexual  and  a  gentile  organization,  both  in  existence  at  the 
same  time,  the  former  holding  the  central  position,  and  the 
latter  inchoate  but  advancing  to  completeness  through  en- 
croachments upon  the  former. 


ORGANIZA  TION  OF  SOCIETY  ON  BASIS  OF  SEX.       5  i 

This  organization  upon  sex  has  not  been  found,  as  yet,  in 
any  tribes  of  savages  out  of  Australia,  but  the  slow  develop- 
ment of  these  islanders  in  their  secluded  habitat,  and  the  more 
archaic  character  of  the  organization  upon  sex  than  that  into 
gentes,  suggests  the  conjecture,  that  the  former  may  have  been 
universal  in  such  branches  of  the  human  family  as  afterwards 
possessed  the  gentile  organization.  Although  the  class  system, 
when  traced  out  fully,  involves  some  bewildering  complica- 
tions, it  will  reward  the  attention  necessary  for  its  mastery. 
As  a  curious  social  organization  among  savages  it  possesses 
but  little  interest;  but  as  the  most  primitive  form  of  society 
hitherto  discovered,  and  more  especially  with  the  contingent 
probability  that  the  remote  progenitors  of  our  own  Aryan 
family  were  once  similarly  organized,  it  becomes  important, 
and  may  prove  instructive. 

The  Australians  rank  below  the  Polynesians,  and  far  below 
the  American  aborigines.  They  stand  below  the  African 
negro  and  near  the  bottom  of  the  scale.  Their  social  institu- 
tions, therefore,  must  approach  the  primitive  type  as  nearly  as 
those  of  any  existing  people.^ 

Inasmuch  as  the  gens  is  made  the  subject  of  the  next  suc- 
ceeding chapter,  it  will  be  introduced  in  this  without  discus- 
sion, and  only  for  the  necessary  explanation  of  the  classes. 

The  Kamilaroi  are  divided  into  six  gentes,  standing  Avith 
reference  to  the  right  of  marriage,  iojiwo  divisions,  as  follows: 

I.  I.  Iguana,  (Duli).  2.  Kangaroo,  (Murriira).^  3.  Opos- 
sum, (Mute). 

II.  4.  Emu,  (Dinoun).  5.  Bandicoot,  (Bilba).  6.  Black- 
snake,  (Nurai). 

1  For  the  detailed  facts  of  the  Austrahan  system  I  am  indebted  to  the  Rev. 
Lorimer  Fison,  an  Enghsh  missionary  in  AustraHa,  who  received  a  portion  of 
them  from  the  Rev.  W.  Ridley,  and  another  portion  from  T.  E.  Lance,  Esq.,  both 
of  whom  had  spent  many  years  among  the  Australian  aborigines,  and  enjoyed 
excellent  opportunities  for  observation.  The  facts  were  sent  by  Mr.  Fison  with  a 
^critical  analysis  and  discussion  of  the  system,  which,  with  observations  of  the 
writer,  were  published  in  the  Proceedings  of  the  Am.  Acad,  of  Arts  and  Sciences 
for  1872.  See  vol.  viii,  p.  412.  A  brief  notice  of  the  Kamilaroi  classes  is  given 
in  McLennan's  Primitive  Marriage,  p.  118;  and  in  Tylor's  Early  History  of 
Mankind,  p.  288. 
'  Padymelon  :  a  species  of  kangaroo. 


52 


ANCIENT  SOCIETY. 


Originally  the  first  three  gentes  were  not  allowed  to  inter- 
marry with  each  other,  because  they  were  subdivisions  of  an 
original  gens;  but  they  were  permitted  to  marry  into  either  of 
the  other  gentes,  and  vice  versa.  This  ancient  rule  is  now 
modified,  among  the  Kamilaroi,  in  certain  definite  particulars, 
but  not  carried  to  the  full  extent  of  permitting  marriage  into 
any  gens  but  that  of  the  individual.  Neither  males  nor  fe- 
males can  marry  into  their  own  gens,  the  prohibition  being 
absolute.  Descent  is  in  the  female  line,  which  assigns  the 
children  to  the  gens  of  their  mother.  These  are  among  the 
essential  characteristics  of  the  gens,  wherever  this  institution  is 
found  in  its  archaic  form.  In  its  external  features,  therefore,  it 
is  perfect  and  complete  among  the  Kamilaroi. 

But  there  is  a  further  and  older  division  of  the  people  into 
eight  classes,  four  of  which  are  composed  exclusively  of  males, 
and  four  exclusively  of  females.  It  is  accompanied  with  a 
regulation  in  respect  to  marriage  and  descent  which  obstructs 
the  gens,  and  demonstrates  that  the  latter  organization  is  in 
process  of  development  into  its  true  logical  form.  One  only 
of  the  four  classes  of  males  can  marry  into  one  only  of 
the  four  classes  of  females.  In  the  sequel  it  will  be  found 
that  all  the  males  of  one  class  are,  theoretically,  the  husbands 
of  all  the  females  of  the  class  into  which  they  are  allowed  to 
marry.  Moreover,  if  the  male  belongs  to  one  of  the  first  three 
gentes  the  female  must  belong  to  one  of  the  opposite  three. 
Marriage  is  thus  restricted  to  a  portion  of  the  males  of  one 
gens,  with  a  portion  of  the  females  of  another  gens,  which  is 
opposed  to  the  true  theory  of  the  gentile  institution,  for  all  the 
members  of  each  gens  should  be  allowed  to  marry  persons  of 
the  opposite  sex  in  all  the  gentes  except  their  own. 

The  classes  are  the  following: 

Male.  Female. 

1.  Ippai.  I.   Ippata. 

2.  Kumbo.  2.   Buta. 

3.  Murri.  3.   Mata. 

4.  Kubbi.  4.   Kapota. 

All  the  Ippais,  of  whatever  gens,  are  brothers  to  each  other. 
Theoretically,  they  are  descended  from  a  supposed  common 


ORGANIZATION  OF  SOCIETY  ON  BASIS  OF  SEX.       53 

female  ancestor.  All  the  Kumbos  are  the  same;  and  so  are 
all  the  Murris  and  Kubbis,  respectively,  and  for  the  same  rea- 
son. In  like  manner,  all  the  Ippatas,  of  whatever  gens,  are 
sisters  to  each  other,  and  for  the  same  reason;  all  the  Butas  are 
the  same,  and  so  are  all  the  Matas  and  Kapotas,  respectively. 
In  the  next  place,  all  the  Ippais  and  Ippatas  are  brothers  and 
sisters  to  each  other,  whether  children  of  the  same  mother  or 
collateral  consanguine!,  and  in  whatever  gens  they  are  found. 
The  Kumbos  and  Butas  are  brothers  and  sisters;  and  so  are 
the  Murris  and  Matas,  and  the  Kubbis  and  Kapotas  respect- 
ively. If  an  Ippai  and  Ippata  meet,  who  have  never  seen  each 
other  before,  they  address  each  other  as  brother  and  sister. 
The  Kamilaroi,  therefore,  are  organized  into  four  great  primary 
groups  of  brothers  and  sisters,  each  group  being  composed  of 
a  male  and  a  female  branch;  but  intermingled  over  the  areas  of 
their  occupation.  Founded  upon  sex,  instead  of  kin,  it  is  older 
than  the  gentes,  and  more  archaic,  it  may  be  repeated,  than 
any  form  of  society  hitherto  known. 

The  classes  embody  the  germ  of  the  gens,  but  fall  short  of 
its  realization.  In  reality  the  Ippais  and  Ippatas  form  a  single 
class  in  two  branches,  and  since  they  cannot  intermarry  they 
would  form  the  basis  of  a  gens  but  for  the  reason  that  they  fall 
under  two  names,  each  of  which  is  integral  for  certain  pur- 
poses, and  for  the  further  reason  that  their  children  take  dif- 
ferent names  from  their  own.  The  division  into  classes  is 
upon  sex  instead  of  kin,  and  has  its  primary  relation  to  a  rule 
of  marriage  as  remarkable  as  it  is  original. 

Since  brothers  and  sisters  are  not  allowed  to  intermarry,  the 
classes  stand  to  each  other  in  a  different  order  with  respect  to 
the  right  of  .marriage,  or  rather,  of  cohabitation,  which  better 
expresses  the  relation.      Such  was  the  original  law,  thus: 
Ippai   can  marry  Kapota,  and  no  other. 
Kumbo  "       "        Mata,        "      "       " 
Murri     "       "       Buta,         "      "       " 
Kubbi    "       "        Ippata,      "      "       " 
This  exclusive  scheme  has  been  modified  in  one   particular, 
as  will  hereafter  be  shown :  namely,  in  giving  to  each  class  of 
males  the  right  of  intermarriage  with  one  additional  class  of 


54 


ANCIENT  SOCIETY. 


females.  In  this  fact,  evidence  of  the  encroachment  of  the 
gens  upon  the  class  is  furnished,  tending  to  the  overthrow  of 
the  latter. 

It  is  thus  seen  that  each  male  in  the  selection  of  a  wife,  is 
Hmited  to  one-fourth  part  of  all  the  Kamilaroi  females.  This, 
however,  is  not  the  remarkable  part  of  the  system.  Theoretic- 
ally every  Kapota  is  the  wife  of  every  Ippai;  every  Mata  is 
the  wife  of  every  Kumbo;  every  Buta  is  the  wife  of  every 
Murri;  and  every  Ippata  of  every  Kubbi.  Upon  this  material 
point  the  information  is  specific.  Mr.  Fison,  before  mentioned, 
after  observing  that  Mr.  Lance  had  "had  much  intercourse 
with  the  natives,  having  lived  among  them  many  years  on 
frontier  cattle-stations  on  the  Darling  River,  and  in  the  trans- 
Darling  country,"  quotes  from  his  letter  as  follows:  "If  a 
Kubbi  meets  a  stranger  Ippata,  they  address  each  other  as 
Golccr  =  Spouse.  ...  A  Kubbi  thus  meeting  an  Ippata,  even 
though  she  were  of  another  tribe,  would  treat  her  as  his  wife, 
and  his  right  to  do  so  would  be  recognized  by  her  tribe." 
Every  Ippata  within  the  immediate  circle  of  his  acquaintance 
would  consequently  be  his  wife  as  well. 

Here  we  find,  in  a  direct  and  definite  form,  punaluan  mar- 
riage in  a  group  of  unusual  extent;  but  broken  up  into  lesser 
groups,  each  a  miniature  representation  of  the  whole,  united 
for  habitation  and   subsistence.      Under  the   conjugal   system 
thus  brought  to  light,  one-quarter  of  all  the  males  are  united  in 
marriage  with  one-quarter  of  all  the  females  of  the  Kamilaroi 
tribes.     This  picture  of  savage  life  need  not  revolt  the  mind, 
(because  to  them  it  was  a  form  of  the  marriage  relation,  and 
/therefore  devoid  of  impropriety.     It  is  but  an  extended  form 
\)f    polygyny   and   polyandry,   which,   within   nariKDwer  limits, 
have  prevailed  universally  among  savage  tribes.     The  evidence 
of  the  fact  still  exists,  in  unmistakable  form,  in  their  systems 
of  consanguinity  and  affinity,  which  have  outlived  the  customs 
and  usages  in  which  they  originated.      It  will  be  noticed  that 
this  scheme  of  intermarriage  is  but  a  step  from  promiscuity, 
because  it  is  tantamount  to  that  with  the  addition  of  a  method. 
Still,  as  it  is  made  a  subject  of  organic  regulation,  it  is  far  re- 
moved from  general  promiscuity.     Moreover,  it  reveals  an  ex- 


ORGANIZATION  OF  SOCIETY  ON  BASIS  OF  SEX.       55 

isting  state  of  marriage  and  of  the  family  of  which  no  adequate 
conception  could  have  been  formed  apart  from  the  facts.  It 
affords  the  first  direct  evidence  of  a  state  of  society  which  had 
previously  been  deduced,  as  extremely  probable,  from  systems 
of  consanguinity  and  affinity.^ 

Whilst  the  children  remained  in  the  gens  of  their  mother, 
they  passed  into  another  class,  in  the  same  gens,  different  from 
that  of  either  parent.  This  will  be  made  apparent  by  the  fol- 
lowing table: 

Male.  Female.  Male.  FetJiale. 

Ippai  marries  Kapota.      Their  children  are  Murri  and  Mata. 
Kumbo  "        Mata.  "  "  "    Kubbi    "     Kapota. 

Murri      "        Buta.  "  "  "    Ippai     "     Ippata. 

Kubbi     "        Ippata.  "  "  "    Kumbo"     Buta. 

If  these  descents  are  followed  out  it  will  be  found  that,  in 
the  female  line,  Kapota  is  the  mother  of  Mata,  and  Mata  in 
turn  is  the  mother  of  Kapota;  so  Ippata  is  the  mother  of  Buta, 
and  the  latter  in  turn  is  the  mother  of  Ippata.  It  is  the  same 
with  the  male  classes;  but  since  descent  is  in  the  female  line, 
the  Kamilaroi  tribes  derive  themselves  from  two  supposed 
female  ancestors,  which  laid  the  foundation  for  two  original 
gentes.  By  tracing  these  descents  still  further  it  will  be  found 
that  the  blood  of  each  class  passes  through  all  the  classes. 

Although  each  individual  bears  one  of  the  class  names  above 
given,  it  will  be  understood  that  each  has  in  addition  the  single 
personal  name,  which  is  common  among  savage  as  well  as  bar- 
barous tribes.  The  more  closely  this  organization  upon  sex  is 
scrutinized,  the  more  remarkable  it  seems  as  the  work  of 
savages.  When  once  established,  and  after  that  transmitted 
through  a  few  generations,  it  would  hold  society  with  such 
power  as  to  become  difficult  of  displacement.  It  would  re- 
quire a  similar  and  higher  system,  and  centuries  of  time,  to  ac- 
complish this  result;  particularly  if  the  range  of  the  conjugal 
system  would  thereby  be  abridged. 

The  gentile  organization  supervened  naturally  upon  the 
classes  as  a  higher  organization,  by  simply  enfolding  them  un- 

'  Systems  of  Consangtnnity  and  Affinity  of  the  Himan  Family,  (Smithsoiiian 
Contributions  to  Knowledge),  vol.  xvii,  p.  420,  et  sea. 


56 


ANCIENT  SOCIETY. 


changed.  That  it  was  subsequent  in  point  of  time,  is  shown 
by  the  relations  of  the  two  systems,  by  the  inchoate  condition 
of  the  gentes,  by  the  impaired  condition  of  the  classes  through 
encroachments  by  the  gens,  and  by  the  fact  that  the  class  is 
still  the  unit  of  organization.  These  conclusions  will  be  made 
apparent  in  the  sequel. 

From  the  preceding  statements  the  composition  of  the  gentes 
will  be  understood  when  placed  in  their  relations  to  the  classes. 
The  latter  arc  in  pairs  of  brothers  and  sisters  derived  from  each 
other;  and  the  gentes  themselves,  through  the  classes,  are  in 
pairs,  as  follows: 

Gentes.  Male.  Female.        Male.  Female. 

1.  Iguana.  All  are  Murri     and  Mata,  or  Kubbi  and  Kapota. 

2.  Emu.  "     "   Kumbo     "    Buta,    "  Ippai     "     Ippata. 


3.  Kangaroo. 

"     "   Murri        "    Mata, 

"  Kubbi   "     Kapota. 

4.  Bandicoot. 

"     "   Kumbo    "    Buta, 

"  Ippai     "     Ippata. 

5.  Opossum.        "     "   Murri       "    Mata,  "  Kubbi   "     Kapota. 

6.  Blacksnake.     "     "   Kumbo    "    Buta,    "  Ippai     "     Ippata. 

The  connection  of  children  with  a  particular  gens  is  proven 
by  the  law  of  marriage.  Thus,  Iguana- Mata  must  marry 
Kumbo;  her  children  are  Kubbi  and  Kapota,  and  necessarily 
Iguana  in  gens,  because  descent  is  in  the  female  line.  Iguana- 
Kapota  must  marry  Ippai;  her  children  are  Murri  and  Mata, 
and  also  Iguana  in  gens,  for  the  same  reason.  In  like  manner 
Emu- Buta  must  marry  Murri;  her  children  are  Ippai  and 
Ippata,  and  of  the  Emu  gens.  So  Emu-Ippata  must  marry 
Kubbi ;  her  children  are  Kumbo  and  Buta,  and  also  of  the 
Emu  gens.  In  this  manner  the  gens  is  maintained  by  keeping 
in  its  membership  the  children  of  all  its  female  members.  The 
same  is  true  in  all  respects  of  each  of  the  remaining  gentes. 
It  will  be  noticed  that  each  gens  is  made  up,  theoretically,  of 
the  descendants  of  two  supposed  female  ancestors,  and  contains 
four  of  the  eight  classes.  It  seems  probable  that  originally 
there  were  but  two  male,  and  two  female  classes,  which  were 
set  opposite  to  each  other  in  respect  to  the  right  of  marriage; 
and    that    the    four   afterward    subdivided    into    eight.      The 


.  ORGANIZATION  OF  SOCIETY  ON  BASIS  OF  SEX.       57 

classes  as  an  anterior  organization  were  evidently  arranged 
within  the  gentes,  and  not  formed  by  the  subdivision  of  the 
latter. 

Moreover,  since  the  Iguana,  Kangaroo  and  Opossum  gentes 
are  found  to  be  counterparts  of  each  other,  in  the  classes  they 
contain,  it  follows  that  they  are  subdivisions  of  an  original 
gens.  Precisely  the  same  is  true  of  Emu,  Bandicoot  and 
Blacksnake,  in  both  particulars;  thus  reducing  the  six  to  two 
original  gentes,  with  the  right  in  each  to  marry  into  the  other, 
but  not  into  itself  It  is  confirmed  by  the  fact  that  the  members 
of  the  first  three  gentes  could  not  originally  intermarry;  neither 
could  the  members  of  the  last  three.  The  reason  which  pre- 
vented intermarriage  in  the  gens,  when  the  three  were  one, 
would  follow  the  subdivisions  because  they  were  of  the  same 
descent  although  under  different  gentile  names.  Exactly  the 
same  thing  is  found  among  the  Seneca-Iroquois,  as  will  here- 
after be  shown. 

Since  marriage  is  restricted  to  particular  classes,  when  there 
were  but  two  gentes, one-half  of  all  the  females  of  one  were, 
theoretically,  the  wives  of  one-half  of  all  the  males  of  the  other. 
After  their  subdivision  into  six  the  benefit  of  marrying  out  of 
the  gens,  which  was  the  chief  advantage  of  the  institution,  was 
arrested,  if  hot  neutralized,  by  the  presence  of  the  classes  to- 
gether with  the  restrictions  mentioned.  It  resulted  in  contin- 
uous in-and-in  marriages  beyond  the  immediate  degree  of 
brother  and  sister.  If  the  gens  could  have  eradicated  the 
classes  this  evil  would,  in  a  great  measure,  have  been  removed.' 

'  If  a  diagram,  of  descents  is  made,  for  example,  of  Ippai  and  Kapota,  and 
carried  to  the  fourth  generation,  giving  to  each  intermediate  pair  two  children,  a 
male  and  a  female,  the  following  results  will  appear.  The  children  of  Ippai  and 
Kapota  are  Murri  and  Mata.  As  brothers  and  sisters  the  latter  cannot  marry. 
At  the  second  degree,  the  children  of  Murri,  married  to  Buta,  are  Ippai  and 
Ippata,  and  of  Mata  married  to  Kumbo,  are  Kubbi  and  Kapota.  Of  these,  Ippai 
marries  his  cousin  Kapota,  and  Kubbi  marries  his  cousin  Ippata.  It  will  be 
noticed  that  the  eight  classes  are  reproduced  from  two  in  the  second  and  third 
generations,  with  the  exception  of  Kumbo  and  Buta.  At  the  next  or  third 
degree,  there  are  two  Murris,  two  Matas,  two  Kumbos,  and  two  Butas ;  of  whom 
the  Murris  marry  the  Butas,  their  second  cousins,  and  the  Kubbis  the  Matas,  their 
second  cousins.  At  the  fourth  generation  there  are  four  each  of  Ippais  Kapotas 
Kubbis  and  Ippatas,  who  are  third  cousins.  Of  these,  the  Ippais  marry  the 
Kapotas,  and  the  Kubbis  the  Ippatas ;  and  thus  it  runs  from  generation  to  genera- 


58 


ANCIENT  SOCIETY. 


The  organization  into  classes  seems  to  have  been  directed  to 
the  single  object  of  breaking  up  the  intermarriage  of  brothers 
and  sisters,  which  affords  a  probable  explanation  of  the  origin 
of  the  system.  But  since  it  did  not  look  beyond  this  special 
abomination  it  retained  a  conjugal  system  nearly  as  objectiona- 
ble, as  well  as  cast  it  in  a  permanent  form. 

A_It  remains  to  notice  an  innovation  upon  the  original  consti- 
tution of  the  classes,  and  in  favor  of  the  gens,  which  reveals  a 
movement,  still  pending,  in  the  direction  of  the  true  ideal  of  the 
gens.  It  is  shown  in  two  particulars:  firstly,  in  allowing  each 
triad  of  gentes  to  intermarry  with  each  other,  to  a  limited  ex- 
tent ;  and  secondly,  to  marry  into  classes  not  before  permitted. 
Thus,  Iguana-Murri  can  now  marry  Mata  in  the  Kangaroo 
gens,  his  collateral  sister,  whereas  originally  he  was  restricted 
to  Buta  in  the  opposite  three.  So  Iguana- Kubbi  can  now  marry 
Kapota,  his  collateral  sister.  Emu-Kumbo  can  now  marry  Buta, 
and  Emu-Ippai  can  marry  Ippata  in  the  Blacksnake  gens,  con- 
trary to  original  hmitations.  Each  class  of  males  in  each  triad 
of  gentes  seems  now  to  be  allowed  one  additional  class  of 
females  in  the  two  remaining  gentes  of  the  same  triad,  from 
which  they  were  before  excluded.  The  memoranda  sent  by 
Mr.  Fison,  however,  do  not  show  a  change  to  the  full  extent 
here  indicated.^ 

This  innovation  would  plainly  have  been  a  retrograde  move- 
ment but  that  it  tended  to  break  down  the  classes.  The  line 
of  progress  among  the  Kamilaroi,  so  far  as  any  is  observable, 
was  from  classes  into  gentes,  followed  by  a  tendency  to  make 
the  gens  instead  of  the  class  the  unit  of  the  social  organism, 
In  this  movement  the  overshadowing  system  of  cohabitation 
was  the  resisting  element.      Social  advancement  was  impossible 

tion.  A  similar  chart  of  the  remaining  marriageable  classes  will  produce  like 
results.  These  details  are  tedious,  but  they  make  the  fact  apparent  that  in  this 
condition  of  ancient  society  they  not  only  intermarry  constantly,  but  are  compelled 
to  do  so  through  this  organization  upon  se.x.  Cohabitation  would  not  follow  this 
invariable  course  because  an  entire  male  and  female  class  were  married  in  a  group ; 
but  its  occurrence  must  have  been  constant  under  the  system.  One  of  the  primary 
objects  secured  by  the  gens,  when  fully  matured,  was  thus  defeated  :  namely,  the 
segregation  of  a  moiety  of  the  descendants  of  a  supposed  common  ancestor  under 
a  prohibition  of  intermarriage,  followed  by  a  right  of  marrying  into  any  other  gens. 
•  Proc.  Am.  Acad.  Arts  and  Sciences,  viii,  436. 


ORGANIZA  TION  OF  SOCIETY  ON  BASIS  OF  SEX.       59 

without  diminishing  its  extent,  which  was  equally  impossible 
so  long  as  the  classes,  with  the  privileges  they  conferred,  re- 
mained in  full  vitality.  The  jiira  coujugialia,  which  apper- 
tained to  these  classes,  were  the  dead  weight  upon  the  Kamila- 
roi,  without  emancipation  from  which  they  would  have  re- 
mained for  additional  thousands  of  years  in  the  same  condition, 
substantially,  in  which  they  were  found. 

An  organization  somewhat  similar  is  indicated  by  the  puna- 
lua  oi  the  Hawaiians  which  will  be  hereafter  explained. 
Wherever  the  middle  or  lower  stratum  of  savagery  is  un- 
covered, marriages  of  entire  groups  under  usages  defining  the 
groups,  have  been  discovered  either  in  absolute  form,  or  such 
traces  as  to  leave  little  doubt  that  such  marriages  were  normal 
throughout  this  period  of  man's  history.  It  is  immaterial 
whether  the  group,  theoretically,  was  large  or  small,  the  neces- 
sities of  their  condition  would  set  a  practical  limit  to  the  size 
of  the  group  living  together  under  this  custom.  If  then 
community  of  husbands  and  wives  is  found  to  have  been  a  law 
of  the  savage  state,  and,  therefore,  the  essential  condition  of 
society  in  savagery,  the  inference  would  be  conclusive  that 
our  own  savage  ancestors  shared  in  this  common  experience  of 
the  human  race. 

In  such  usages  and  customs  an  explanation  of  the  low  con-  )(^ 
dition  of  savages  is  found.  If  men  in  savagery  had  not  been 
left  behind,  in  isolated  portions  of  the  earth,  to  testify  concern- 
ing the  early  condition  of  mankind  in  general,  it  would  have 
been  impossible  to  form  any  definite  conception  of  what  it 
must  have  been.  An  important  inference  at  once  arises, 
namely,  that  the  institutions  of  mankind  have  sprung  up  in  a 
progressive  connected  series,  each  of  which  represents  the  result 
of  unconscious  reformatory  movements  to  extricate  society 
from  existing  evils.  The  wear  of  ages  is  upon  these  institu-  \^ 
tions,  for  the  proper  understanding  of  which  they  must  be 
studied  in  this  light.  It  cannot  be  assumed  that  the  Austra- 
lian savages  are  now  at  the  bottom  of  the  scale,  for  their  arts 
and  institutions,  humble  as  they  are,  show  the  contrary;  neither 
is  there  any  ground  for  assuming  their  degradation  from  a 
higher  condition,  because  the  facts  of  human  experience  afford 


6o  ANCIENT  SOCIETY. 

no  sound  basis  for  such  an  hypothesis.  Cases  of  physical  and 
mental  deterioration  in  tribes  and  nations  may  be  admitted, 
for  reasons  which  are  known,  but  they  never  interrupted  the 
general  progress  of  mankind.  All  the  facts  of  human  knowl- 
edge and  experience  tend  to  show  that  the  human  race,  as  a 
whole,  have  steadily  progressed  from  a  lower  to  a  higher  con- 
dition. The  arts  by  which  savages  maintain  their  lives  are  re- 
markably persistent.  They  are  never  lost  until  superseded  by 
others  higher  in  degree.  By  the  practice  of  these  arts,  and  by 
the  experience  gained  through  social  organizations,  mankind 
have  advanced  under  a  necessary  law  of  development,  although 
their  progress  may  have  been  substantially  imperceptible  for 
centuries.  It  was  the  same  with  races  as  with  individuals,  al- 
though tribes  and  nations  have  perished  through  the  disruption 
of  their  ethnic  life. 

The  Australian  classes  afford  the  first,  and,  so  far  as  the 
writer  is  aware,  the  only  case  in  which  we  are  able  to  look 
down  into  the  incipient  stages  of  the  organization  into  gentes, 
and  even  through  it  upon  an  anterior  organization  so  archaic 
as  that  upon  sex.  It  seems  to  afford  a  glimpse  at  society  when 
it  verged  upon  the  primitive.  Among  other  tribes  the  gens 
seems  to  have  advanced  in  proportion  to  the  curtailment  of  the 
conjugal  system.  Mankind  rise  in  the  scale  and  the  family 
advances  through  itr"5ucces5TVe~fofms,'~  as  these  rights  sink 
down  before  the  efforts  of  society  to  improve  its  internal  or- 
ganization. 

The  Australians  might  not  have  effected  the  overthrow,  of 
the  classes  in  thousands  of  years  if  they  had  remained  undis- 
covered; while  more  favored  continental  tribes  had  long  before 
perfected  the  gens,  then  advanced  it  through  its  successive 
phases,  and  at  last  laid  it  aside  after  entering  upon  civilization. 
Facts  illustrating  the  rise  of  successive  social  organizations,  such 
as  that  upon  sex,  and  that  upon  kin  arc  of  the  highest  ethno- 
logical value.  A  knowledge  of  what  they  indicate  is  eminently"^ 
1  desirable,  if  the  early  history  of  mankind  is  to  be  measurably 
I  recovered. 

f|        Among  the"  Polynesian  tribes  the  gens  was  unknown;  but 
"jr  traces  of  a  system  analogous  to  the  Australian  classes  appear  in 


ORGANIZATION  OF  SOCIETY  ON  BASIS  OF  SEX.      6 1 

the  Hawaiian  custom  of  punalua.  Original  ideas,  absolutely 
independent  of  previous  knowledge  and  experience,  are  nec- 
essarily few  in  number.  Were  it  possible  to  reduce  the  sum 
of  human  ideas  to  underived  originals,  the  small  numerical  re- 
sult would  be  startling.  Development  is  the  method  of  human 
progress. 

In  the  light  of  these  facts  some  of  the  excrescences  of  mod- 
ern civilization,  such  as  Mormonism,  are  seen  to  be  relics  of  the 
old  savagism  not  yet  eradicated  from  the  human  brain.  We 
have  the  same  brain,  perpetuated  by  reproduction,  which 
worked  in  the  skulls  of  barbarians  and  savages  in  by-gone  ages; 
and  it  has  come  down  to  us  ladened  and  saturated  with  the 
thoughts  aspirations  and  passions,  with  which  it  was  busied 
through  the  intermediate  periods.  It  is  the  same  brain  grown 
older  and  larger  with  the  experience  of  the  ages.  These  out- 
crops of  barbarism  are  so  many  revelations  of  its  ancient  pro- 
clivities.    They  are  explainable  as  a  species  of  mental  atavism. 

Out  of  a  few  germs  of  thought,  conceived  in  the  early  ages, 
have  been  evolved  all  the  principal  institutions  of  mankind. 
Beginning  their  growth  in  the  period  of  savagery,  fermenting 
through  the  period  of  barbarism,  they  have  continued  their  ad- 
vancement through  the  period  of  civilization.  The  evolution 
of  these  germs  of  thought  has  been  guided  by  a  natural  logic 
which  formed  an  essential  attribute  of  the  brain  itself  So  un- 
erringly has  this  principle  performed  its'  functions  in  all  condi- 
tions of  experience,  and  in  all  periods  of  time,  that  its  results 
are  uniform,  coherent  and  traceable  in  their  courses.  These  re- 
sults alone  will  in  time  yield  convincing  proofs  of  the  unity  of  or- 
igin of  mankind.  The  mental  history  of  the  human  race,  which 
is  revealed  in  institutions  inventions  and  discoveries,  is  pre- 
sumptively the  history  of  a  single  species,  perpetuated  through 
individuals,  and  developed  through  experience.  Among 
the  original  germs  of  thought,  which  have  exercised  the  most 
powerful  influence  upon  the  human  mind,  and  upon  human 
destiny,  are  these  which  relate  to  government,  to  the  family, 
to  language,  to  religion,  and  to  property.  They  had  a  definite 
beginning  far  back  in  savagery,  and  a  logical  progress,  but  can 
have  no  final  consummation,  because  they  are  still  progressing, 
and  must  ever  continue  to  progress. 


CHAPTER     II. 

THE   IROQUOIS   GENS. 

The  Gentile  Organization. — Its  Wide  Prevalence. — Definition  of  a 
Gens. — Descent  in  the  Female  Line  the  Archaic  Rule. — Rights,  Priv- 
ileges and  Obligations  of  Members  of  a  Gens. — Right  of  Electing  and 
Deposing  its  Sachem  and  Chiefs. — Obligation  not  to  marry  in  the  Gens. 
— Mutual  Rights  of  Inheritance  of  the  Property  of  deceased  Mem- 
bers.— Reciprocal  Obligations  of  Help,  Defense  and  Redress  of  In- 
juries.—Right  of  Naming  its  Members. — Right  of  Adopting  Strangers 
into  the  Gens. — Common  Religious  Rites,  Query.— A  Common  Burial 
Place. — Council  of  the  Gens. — Gentes  named  after  Animals. — Number 
of  Persons  in  a  Gens. 

The  experience  of  mankind,  as  elsewhere  remarked,  has  de- 
veloped but  two  plans  of  government,  using  the  word  plan  in 
its  scientific  sense.  Both  were  definite  and  systematic  organi- 
zations of  society.  The  first  and  most  ancient  was  a  social_or- 
ganization,  founded  upon  gentes,  phratries  and  tribes.  The 
second  and  latest  in  time  was  a  political  organisation^  founded 
upon  territory  and  upon  property.  TJiTder  the  first  a  gentile 
society  was  created,  in  which  the  government  dealt  with  per- 
sons through  their  relations  to  a  gens  and  tribe.  These  rela- 
tions were  purely  personal.  Under  the  second  a  political 
society  was  instituted,  in  which  the  government  dealt  with 
I  persons  through  their  relations  to  territory,  e.  g. — the  town- 
!  ship,  the  county,  and  the  state.  These  relations  were  purely 
territorial.  The  two  plans  were  fundamentally  different.  One 
belongs  to  ancient  society,  and  the  other  to  modern. 

The  gentile  organization  opens  to  us  one  of  the  oldest  and 
most  widely  prevalent  institutions  of  mankind.      It  furnished 


THE  IROQUOIS  GENS.  63 

the  nearly  universal  plan  of  government  of  ancient  society, 
Asiatic,  European,  African,  American  and  Australian.  It  was 
the  instrumentality  by  means  of  which  society  was  organized 
and  held  together.  Commencing  in  savagery,  and  continuing 
through  the  three  sub-periods  of 'barbarism,  it  remained  until 
the  establishment  of  political  society,  which  did  not  occur  until 
after  civilization  had  commenced.  The  Grecian  gens,  phratry 
and  tribe,  the  Roman  gens,  curia  and  tribe  find  their  analogues 
in  the  gens,  phratry  and  tribe  of  the  American  aborigines.  In 
like  manner,  the  Irish  sept,  the  Scottish  clan,  the  phrara  of  the 
Albanians,  and  the  Sanskrit  gaiias,  without  extending  the  com- 
parison further,  are  the  same  as  the  American  Indian  gens, 
which  has  usually  been  called  a  clan.  As  far  as  our  knowl- 
edge extends,  this  organization  runs  through  the  entire  ancient 
world  upon  all  the  continents,  and  it  was  brought  down  to  the 
historical  period  by  such  tribes  as  attained  to  civilization.  Nor 
is  this  all.  Gentile  society  wherever  found  is  the  same  in  struct- 
ural organization  and  in  principles  of  action;  but  changing 
from  lower  to  higher  forms  with  the  progressive  advancement 
of  the  people.  These  changes  give  the  history  of  development 
of  the  same  original  conceptions. 

Gcjis,  y€v6?,  and  ganas  in  Latin,  Greek  and  Sanskrit  have 
alike  the  primary  signification  of  kin.  They  contain  the  same 
element  as  gigno,  yiyr'Of.iai,  and  ganamai,  in  the  same  lan- 
guages, signifying  to  beget;  thus  implying  in  each  an  immedi- 
ate common  descent  of  the  members  of  a  gens.  A  gens, 
therefore,  is  a  body  of  consanguinei  descended  from  the  same 
common  ancestor,  distinguished  b)^  a  gentile  name,  and  bound 
together  by  affinities"  of "t)rood.  It  includes  a  moiety  only  of 
such  descendants.  Where  descent  is  in  the  female  line,  as  it 
was  universally  in  the  archaic  period,  the  gens  is  composed 
of  a  supposed  female  ancestor  and  her  children,  together  with 
the  children  of  her  female  descendants,  through  females,  in 
perpetuity;  and  where  descent  is  in  the  male  line — into  which 
it  was  changed  after  the  appearance  of  property  in  masses — of 
a  supposed  male  ancestor  and  his  children,  together  with  the 
children  of  his  male  descendants,  through  males,  in  perpetuity. 
The  family  name  among  ourselves  is  a  survival  of  the  gentile 


64 


ANCIENT  SOCIETY. 


name,  with  descent  in  the  male  Hne,  and  passing  in  the  same 
manner.  The  modern  family,  as  expressed  by  its  name,  is  an 
unorganized  gens;  with  the  bond  of  kin  broken,  and  its  mem- 
bers as  widely  dispersed  as  the  family  name  is  found. 

Among  the  nations  named,  the  gens  indicated  a  social  organ- 
ization of  a  remarkable  character,  which  had  prevailed  from  an 
antiquity  so  remote  that  its  origin  was  lost  in  the  obscurity  of 
far  distant  ages.  It  was  also  the  unit  of  organization  of  a  so- 
cial and  governmental  system,  the  fundamental  basis  of  ancient 
society.  This  organization  was  not  confined  to  the  Latin 
Grecian  and  Sanskrit  speaking  tribes,  with  whom  it  became 
such  a  conspicuous  institution.  It  has  been  found  in  other 
branches  of  the  Aryan  family  of  nations,  in  the  Semitic,  Ura- 
lian  and  Turanian  families,  among  the  tribes  of  Africa  and 
Australia,  and  of  the  American  aborigines. 

An  exposition  of  the  elementary  constitution  of  the  gens, 
with  its  functions,  rights,  and  privileges,  requires  our  first  atten- 
tion; after  which  it  will  be  traced,  as  widely  as  possible,  among 
the  tribes  and  nations  of  mankind  in  order  to  prove,  by  com- 
parisons, its  fundamental  unity.  It  will  then  be  seen  that  it 
must  be  regarded  as  one  of  the  primary  institutions  of  man- 
kind. 

The  gens  has  passed  through  successive  stages  of  develop- 
ment in  its  transition  from  its  archaic  to  its  final  form  with  the 
progress  of  mankind.  These  changes  were  limited,  in  the 
main,  to  two:  firstly,  changing  descent  from  the  female  line, 
which  was  the  archaic  rule,  as  among  the  Iroquois,  to  the  male 
line,  which  was  the  final  rule,  as  among  the  Grecian  and  Roman 
gentes;  and,  secondly,  changing  the  inheritance  of  the  property 
of  a  deceased  member  of  the  gens  from  his  gentiles,  who  took 
it  in  the  archaic  period,  first  to  his  agnatic  kindred,  and  finally 
to  his  children.  These  changes,  slight  as  they  may  seem,  indi- 
cate very  great  changes  of  condition  as  well  as  a  large  degree 
of  progressive  development. 

The  gentile  organization,  originating  in  the  period  of  sav- 
agery, enduring  through  the  three  sub-periods  of  barbarism, 
finally  gave  way,  among  the  more  advanced  tribes,  when  they 
attained  civilization,  the  requirements  of  which  it  was  unable 


THE  IROQUOIS  GENS.  65 

to  meet.  Among  the  Greeks  and  Romans,  political  society 
supervened  upon  gentile  society,  but  not  until  civilization  had 
commenced.  The  township  (and  its  equivalent,  the  city  ward), 
Avith  its  fixed  property,  and  the  inhabitants  it  contained,  organ- 
ized as  a  body  politic,  became  the  unit  and  the  basis  of  a  new 
and  radically  different  system  of  government.  After  political 
society  was  instituted,  this  ancient  and  time-honored  organiza- 
tion, with  the  phratry  and  tribe  developed  from  it,  gradually 
yielded  up  their  existence.  It  will  be  my  object,  in  the  course  of 
this  volume,  to  trace  the  progress  of  this  organization  from  its  rise 
in  savagery  to  its  final  overthrow  in  civilization;  for  it  was 
under  gentile  institutions  that  barbarism  was  won  by  some  of 
the  tribes  of  mankind  while  in  savagery,  and  that  civilization 
was  won  by  the  descendants  of  some  of  the  same  tribes  while 
in  barbarism.  Gentile  institutions  carried  a  portion  of  man- 
kind from  savagery  to  civilization. 

j  This  organization  may  be  successfully  studied  both  in  its 
living  and  in  its  historical  forms  in  a  large  number  of  tribes 
and  races.  In  such  an  investigation  it  is  preferable  to  com- 
mence with  the  gens  in  its  archaic  form,  and  then  to  follow  it 
through  its  successive  modifications'  among  advanced  nations, 
in  order  to  discover  both  the  changes  and  the  causes  which 
I  produced"  them.  I  shall  commence,  therefore,  with  the  gens 
as  it  now  exists  among  the  American  aborgines,  where  it  is 
found  in  its  archaic  form,  and  among  whom  its  theoretical  con- 
stitution and  practical  workings  can  be  investigated  more  suc- 
cessfully than  in  the  historical  gentes  of  the  Greeks  and  Romans. 
In  fact  to  understand  fully  the  gentes  of  the  latter  nations  a 
f knowledge  of  the  functions,  and  of  the  rights,  privileges  and 
obligations  of  the  members  of  the  American  Indian  gens  is 
imperatively  necessary. 

In  American  Ethnography  tribe  and  clan  have  been  used  in 
I  the  place  of  gens  as  an  equivalent  term,  from  not  perceiving  its 
universality.      In  previous  works,  and  following  my  predeces- 
sors, I  have  so  used  them.^     A  comparison  of -the  Indian  clan 

'  In  Letters  on  the  Iroquois  by  Skenandoa/i,  published  in  the  American  Review 
in  1847;  in  the  League  of  the  Lroquois,  published  in  185 1 ;  and  in  Systems  of  Con- 
sanguinity and  AfUnity  of  the  Ilutnan  Fattiily,  published  in  1871.     {StnithsoniaH 

5 


55  ANCIENT  SOCIETY. 

with  the  gens  of  the  Greeks  and  Romans  reveals  at  once  their 
identity  in  structure  and  functions.  It  also  extends  to  the 
phratry  and  tribe.  If  the  identity  of  these  several  organiza- 
tions can  be  shown,  of  which  there  can  be  no  doubt,  there  is  a 
manifest  propriety  in  returning  to  the  Latin  and  Grecian  ter- 
minologies which  are  full  and  precise  as  well  as  historical.  I 
have  made  herein  the  substitutions  required,  and  propose  to 
show  the  parallelism  of  these  several  organizations. 

The  plan  of  government  of  the  American  aborigines  com-  ^ 
menced  with  the  gens  and  ended  with  the  confederacy,  the  lat- 
ter being  the  highest  point  to  which  their  governmental  insti- 
tutions attained.  It  gave  for  the  organic  series:  first,  the  gens, 
a  body  of  consanguinei  having  a  common  gentile  name ;  sec- 
ond, the  phratry,  an  assemblage  of  related  gentes  united  in  a 
higher  association  for  certain  common  objects ;  third,  the  tribe, 
I  an  assemblage  of  gentes,  usually  organized  in  phratries,  all  the 
members  of  which  spoke  the  same  dialect ;  and  fourth,  a  con- 
federacy of  tribes,  the  members  of  which  respectively  spoke 
dialects  of  the  same  stock  language.  It  resulted  in  a  gentile 
society  (socictas),  as  distinguished  from  a  political  society  or 
state  (civitas).  The  difference  between  the  two  is  wide  and 
fundamental.  There  was  neither  a  political  society,  nor  a  citi- 
zen, nor  a  state,  nor  any  civilization  in  America  when  it  was 
discovered.  One  entire  ethnical  period  intervened  between  the 
highest  American  Indian  tribes  and  the  beginning  of  civiHza- 
tion,  as  that  term  is  properly  understood. 

In  like  manner  the  plan  of  government  of  the  Grecian  tribes, 
anterior  to  civilization,  involved  the  same  organic  series,  wi-tli 
,the  exception  of  the  last  member:  first,  the  gens,  a  body  of 
consanguinei  bearing  a  common  gentile  name;  second,  the 
phratry,  an  assemblage  of  gentes,  united  for  social  and  religious 
objects ;  third,  the  tribe,  an  assemblage  of  gentes  of  the  same 
lineage  organized  in  phratries;  and  fourth,  a  nation,  an  assem- 
blage of  tribes  who  had  coalesced  in  a  gentile  society  upon  one 
common  territory,  as  the  four  tribes  of  the  Athenians  in  Attica, 
and  the  three  Dorian   tribes  at  Sparta.      Coalescence  was  a 

Contributions  to  Knotvledge,  vol.  xvii.)     I  have  used  tribe  as  the  equivalent  oi gens, 
and  in  its  place ;  but  with  an  exact  definition  of  the  group. 


THE  IROQUOIS  GENS.  6/ 

higher  process  than  confederating.  In  the  latter  case  the  tribes 
occupied  independent  territories. 

The  Roman  plan  and  series  were  the  same  :  First,  the  gens, 
a  body  of  consanguinei  bearing  a  common  gentile  name  ;  sec- 
ond, the  curia,  an  assemblage  of  gentes  united  in  a  higher  as- 
sociation for  the  performance  of  religious  and  governmental 
functions;  third,  the  tribe,  an  assemblage  of  gentes  organized 
in  curiae  ;  and  fourth,  a  nation,  an  assemblage  of  tribes  who  had 
coalesced  in  a  gentile  society.  The  early  Romans  styled  them- 
selves, with  entire  propriety,  the  PopiilmRomciniis^ 

Wherever  gentile  institutions  prevailed,  and  prior  to  the  es- 
tablishment of  political  society,  we  find  peoples  or  nations  in 
gentile  societies,  and  nothing  beyond.  The  state  did  not  exist. 
Their  governments  were  essentially  democratical,  because  the 
principles  on  which  the  gens,  phratry  and  tribe  were  organized 
were  democratical.  This  last  proposition,  though  contrary  to 
received  opinions,  is  historically  important.  The  truth  of  it 
can  be  tested  as  the  gens  phratry  and  tribe  of  the  American 
aborigines,  and  the  same  organizations  among  the  Greeks  and 
Romans  are  successively  considered.  As  the  gens,  the  unit  of 
organization,  was  essentially  democratical,  so  necessarily  was  the 
phratry  composed  of  gentes,  the  tribe  composed  of  phratries, 
and  the  gentile  society  formed  by  the  confederating,  or  coales- 
cing of  tribes. 

The  gens,  though  a  very  ancient  social  organization  founded 
upon  kin,  does  not  include  all  the  descendants  of  a  common 
ancestor.  It  was  for  the  reason  that  when  the  gens  came  in, 
marriage  between  single  pairs  was  unknown,  and  descent 
through  males  could  not  be  traced  with  certainty.  Kindred 
were  linked  together  chiefly  through  the  bond  of  their  mater- 
nity. In  the  ancient  gens  descent  was  limited  to  the  female 
line.  It  embraced  all  such  persons  as  traced  their  descent  from 
a  supposed  common  female  ancestor,  through  females,  the  evi- 
dence of  the  fact  being  the  possession  of  a  common  gentile 
name.  It  would  include  this  ancestor  and  her  children,  the 
children  of  her  daughters,  and  the  children  of  her  female 
descendants,  through  females,  in  perpetuity  ;  whilst  the  children 
of  her  sons,  and  the  children  of  her  male  descendants,  through 


68  ANCIENT  SOCIETY. 

males,  would  belong  to  other  gentes ;  namely,  those  of  their 
respective  mothers.  Such  was  the  gens  in  its  archaic  form, 
when  the  paternity  of  children  was  not  certainly  ascertainable, 
and  when  their  maternity  afforded  the  only  certain  criterion  of 
descents. 

This  state  of  descents,  which  can  be  traced  back  to  the  Mid- 
dle Status  of  savagery,  as  among  the  Australians,  remained 
among  the  American  aborigines  through  the  Upper  Status  of 
savagery,  and  into  and  through  the  Lower  Status  of  barbarism, 
with  occasional  exceptions.  In  the  Middle  Status  of  barbarism, 
the  Indian  tribes  began  to  change  descent  from  the  female  line 
to  the  male,  as  the  syndyasmian  family  of  the  period  began  to 
assume  monogamian  characteristics.  In  the  Upper  Status  of 
barbarism,  descent  had  become  changed  to  the  male  line  among 
the  Grecian  tribes,  with  the  exception  of  the  Lycians,  and 
among  the  Italian  tribes,  with  the  exception  of  the  Etruscans. 
I  The  influence  of  property  and  its  inheritance  in  producing  the 
monogamian  family  which  assured  the  paternity  of  children, 
and  in  causing  a  change  of  descent  from  the  female  line  to  the 
male,  will  be  considered  elsewhere.  Between  the  two  extremes, 
represented  by  the  two  rules  of  descent,  three  entire  ethnical 
periods  intervene,  covering  many  thousands  of  years. 

With  descent  in  the  male  line,  the  gens  embraced  all  persons 
who  traced  their  descent  from  a  supposed  common  male  ances- 
tor, through  males  only,  the  evidence  of  the  fact  being,  as  in 
the  other  case,  the  possession  of  a  common  gentile  name.  It 
would  include  this  ancestor  and  his  children,  the  children  of  his 
sons,  and  the  children  of  his  male  descendants,  through  males, 
in  perpetuity;  whilst  the  children  of  his  daughters,  and  the 
children  of  his  female  descendants,  through  females,  would  be- 
long to  other  gentes ;  namely,  those  of  theii*  respective  fathers. 
Those  retained  in  the  gens  in  one  case  were  those  excluded  in 
the  other,  and  vice  versa.  Such  was  the  gens  in  its  final  form, 
■  after  the  paternity  of  children  became  ascertainable  through  the 
'rise  of  monogamy.  The  transition  of  a  gens  from  one  form  in- 
to the  other  was  perfectly  simple,  without  involving  its  over- 
throw. All  that  was  needed  was  an  adequate  motive,  as  will 
elsewhere  be  shown.     The  same  gens,  with  descent  changed  to 


THE  IROQUOIS  GENS.  69 

the  male  line,  remained  the  unit  of  the  social  system.  It  could 
not  have  reached  the  second  form  without  previously  existing 
in  the  first. 

As  intermarriage  in  the  gens  was  prohibited,  it  withdrew  its 
members  from  the  evils  of  consanguine  marriages,  and  thus 
tended  to  increase  the  vigor  of  the  stock.  The  gens  came  into 
being  upon  three  principal  conceptions,  namely  ;  the  bond  of 
kin,  a  pure  lineage  through  descent  in  the  female  line,  and 
non-intermarriage  in  the  gens.  When  the  idea  of  a  gens  was 
developed,  it  would  naturally  have  taken  the  form  of  gentes  in 
pairs,  because  the  children  of  the  males  were  excluded,  and  be- 
cause it  was  equally  necessary  to  organize  both  classes  of  de- 
scendants. With  two  gentes  started  into  being  simultaneously 
the  whole  result  would  have  been  attained  ;  since  the  males  and 
females  of  one  gens  would  marry  the  females  and  males  of  the 
other ;  and  the  children,  following  the  gentes  of  their  respective 
mothers,  would  be  divided  between  them.  Resting  on  the 
bond  of  kin  as  its  cohesive  principle  the  gens  afforded  to  each 
individual  member  that  personal  protection  which  no  other  ex- 
isting power  could  give. 

After  considering  the  rights  privileges  and  obligations  of  its 
members  it  will  be  necessary  to  follow  the  gens  in  its  organic 
relations  to  a  phratry  tribe  and  confederacy,  in  order  to  find 
the  uses  to  which  it  was  applied,  the  privileges  which  it  con- 
ferred, and  the  principles  which  it  fostered.  The  gentes  of  the 
Iroquois  will  be  taken  as  the  standard  exemplification  of  this 
institution  in  the  Ganowanian  family.  They  had  carried  their 
scheme  of  government  from  the  gens  to^the  confederacy,  mak- 
ing it  complete  in  each  of  its  parts,  and  an  excellent  illustration 
of  the  capabilities  of  the  gentile  organization  in  its  archaic 
form.  When  discovered  the  Iroquois  were  in  the  Lower  Status 
of  barbarism,  and  well  advanced  in  the  arts  of  life  pertaining  to 
this  condition.  They  manufactured  nets  twine  and  rope  from 
filaments  of  bark ;  wove  belts  and  burden  straps,  with  warp  and 
woof,  from  the  same  materials;  they  manufactured  earthern 
vessels  and  pipes  from  clay  mixed  with  siliceous  materials  and 
hardened  by  fire,  some  of  which  were  ornamented  with  rude 
medallions;    they  cultivated  maize,  beans,  squashes,  and  to- 


70  ANCIENT  SOCIETY. 

bacco,  in  garden  beds,  and  made  unleavened  bread  from 
pounded  maize  which  they  boiled  in  earthern  vessels;^  they 
tanned  skins  into  leather  with  which  they  manufactured  kilts 
leggins  and  moccasins;  they  used  the  bow  and  arrow  and  war- 
club  as  their  principal  weapons;  used  flint  stone  and  bone  im- 
plements, wore  skin  garments,  and  were  expert  hunters  and 
fishermen.  They  constructed  long  joint-tenement  houses  large 
enough  to  accommodate  five,  ten,  and  twenty  families,  and 
each  household  practiced  communism  in  living;  but  they  were 
unacquainted  with  the  use  of  stone  or  adobe-brick  in  house 
architecture,  and  with  the  use  of  the  native  metals.  In  mental 
capacity  and  in  general  advancement  they  were  the  representa- 
tive branch  of  the  Indian  family  north  of  New  Mexico.  Gen- 
eral F,  A.  Walker  has  sketched  their  military  career  in  two 
paragraphs:  "The  career  of  the  Iroquois  was  simply  terrific. 
They  were  the  scourge  of  God  upon  the  aborigines  of  the  con- 
tinent."^ 

From  lapse  of  time  the  Iroquois  tribes  have  come  to  differ 
slightly  in  the  number,  and  in  the  names  of  their  respective 
gentes.     The  largest  number  being  eight,  as  follows: 

Scnecas. — I.  Wolf  2.  Bear.  3.  Turtle.  4.  Beaver.  5. 
Deer.     6.  Snipe.     7.   Heron.     8.  Hawk. 

Cayugas. — i.  Wolf  2.  Bear.  3.  Turtle.  4.  Beaver.  5. 
Deer.     6.  Snipe.     7.  Eel.     8.   Hawk. 

Onondagas. — i.  Wolf  2.  Bear.  3.  Turtle.  4.  Beaver.  5. 
Deer.     6.  Snipe.     7.  Eel.     8.  Ball. 

Oncidas. — i.  Wolf     2.  Bear.     3.  Turtle. 

MoJia%vks.—  \.  Wolf     2.  Bear.     3.  Turtle. 

Tuscaroras. — i.  Gray  Wolf  2.  Bear.  3.  Great  Turtle.  4. 
Beaver.  5.  Yellow  Wolf  6.  Snipe.  7.  Eel.  8.  Little  Tur- 
tle. 

These  changes  show  that  certain  gentes  in  some  of  the  tribes 
have  become  extinct  through  the  vicissitudes  of  time;  and  that 
others  have  been  formed  by  the  segmentation  of  over-fuU 
gentes. 

With  a  knowledge  of  the  rights  privileges  and  obligations 

'  These  loaves  or  cakes  were  about  six  inches  in  diameter  and  an  inch  thick. 
'  North  American  Review,  April  No.,  1873,  p.  370  Note. 


THE  IROQUOIS  GENS.  71 

of  the  members  of  a  gens,  its  capabilities  as  the  unit  of  a  social 
and  governmental  system  will  be  more  fully  understood,  as 
well  as  the  manner  in  which  it  entered  into  the  higher  organi- 
zations of  the  phratry,  tribe,  and  confederacy. 

The  gens  is  individualized  by  the  following  rights,  privileges, 
land  obligations  conferred  and  imposed  upon  its  members,  and 
hich  made  up  the  jus  gentiliciinn. 

I.    The  right  of  electing  its  sachem  and  chiefs. 
II.    The  right  of  deposing  its  sachem  and  chiefs. 

III.  The  obligation  not  to  marry  in  the  gens. 

IV.  Mutual  rights  of  inheritance  of  the  property    of   de- 

ceased members. 
V.  Reciprocal  obligations  of  help,  defense,   and  redress  of 
injuries. 

VI.    The  rigJit  of  bcstoiving  names  upon  its  members. 
VII.    TJie  right  of  adopting  strangers  into  t lie  gens. 
VIII.    Common  religious  rites,  query. 

IX.  ^  common  burial  place. 
X.  A  coujicil  of  the  gens. 

These  functions  and  attributes  gave  vitality  as  well  as  indi- 
viduahty  to  the  organization,  and  protected  the  personal  rights 
of  its  members. 

I.    The  right  of  electing  its  sachem  and  chiefs. 

Nearly  all  the  American  Indian  tribes  had  two  grades  of 
chiefs,  w^ho  may  be  distinguished  as  sachems  and  common 
chiefs.  Of  these  two  primary  grades  all  other  grades  were  va- 
rieties. They  were  elected  in  each  gens  from  among  its  mem- 
bers. A  son  could  not  be  chosen  to  succeed  his  father,  where 
descent  was  in  the  female  line,  because  he  belonged  to  a  differ- 
ent gens,  and  no  gens  would  have  a  chief  or  sachem  from  any 
gens  but  its  own.  The  office  of  sachem  was  hereditary  in  the 
gens,  in  the  sense  that  it  was  filled  as  often  as  a  vacancy  oc- 
curred ;  while  the  office  of  chief  was  non-hereditary,  because  it 
was  bestowed  in  reward  of  personal  merit,  and  died  with  the 
individual.  Moreover,  the  duties  of  a  sachem  were  confined  to 
the  affairs  of  peace.  He  could  not  go  out  to  war  as  a  sachem. 
On  the  other  hand,  the  chiefs  who  were  raised  to  office  for  per- 
sonal bravery,  for  wisdom  in  affairs,  or  for  eloquence  in  council, 


72 


ANCIENT  SOCIETY. 


were  usually  the  superior  class  in  ability,  though  not  in  author- 
ity over  the  gens.  The  relation  of  the  sachem  was  primarily 
to  the  gens,  of  which  he  was  the  official  head  ;  while  that  of  the 
chief  was  primarily  to  the  tribe,  of  the  council  of  which  he,  as 
well  as  the  sachem,  were  members. 

The  office  of  sachem  had  a  natural  foundation  in  the  gens, 
as  an  organized  body  of  consanguinei  which,  as  such,  needed  a 
representative  head.  As  an  office,  however,  it  is  older  than 
the  gentile  organization,  since  it  is  found  among  tribes  not  thus 
organized,  but  among  whom  it  had  a  similar  basis  in  the  puna- 
luan  group,  and  even  in  the  anterior  horde.  In  the  gens  the 
constituency  of  the  sachem  was  clearly  defined,  the  basis  of  the 
relation  was  permanent,  and  its  duties  paternal.  While  the 
office  was  hereditary  in  the  gens  it  was  elective  among  its  male 
members.  When  the  Indian  system  of  consanguinity  is  con- 
sidered, it  will  be  found  that  all  the  male  members  of  a  gens 
were  either  brothers  to  each  other,  ov/n  or  collateral,  uncles  or 
nephews,  ov/n  or  collateral,  or  collateral  grandfathers  and  grand- 
sons.^ This  will  explain  the  succession  of  the  office  of  sachem 
which  passed  from  brother  to  brother,  or  from  uncle  to  nephew, 
and  very  rarely  from  grandfather  to  grandson.  The  choice, 
which  was  by  free  suffrage  of  both  males  and  females  of  adult 
age,  usually  fell  upon  a  brother  of  the  deceased  sachem,  or  up- 
on one  of  the  sons  of  a  sister  ;  an  own  brother,  or  the  son  of  an 
own  sister  being  most  likely  to  be  preferred.  As  between  sev- 
eral brothers,  own  and  collateral,  on  the  one  hand,  and  the  sons 
of  several  sisters,  own  and  collatefal,  on  the  other,  there  was  no 
priority  of  right,  for  the  reason  that  all  the  male  members  of 
,the  gens  were  equally  eligible.  To  make  a  choice  between 
them  was  the  function  of  the  elective  principle. 

Upon  the  death  of  a  sachem,  for  example  among  the  Sen- 
eca-Iroquois, a  council  of  his  gentiles^  was  convened  to  name 
his  successor.  Two  candidates,  according  to  their  usages,  must 
be  voted  upon,  both  of  them  members  of  the  gens.     Each  per- 

'  The  sons  of  several  sisters  are  brothers  to  each  other,  instead  of  cousins. 

The  latter  are  here  distinguished  as  collateral  brothers.     So  a  man's  brother's  son 

is  his  son  instead  of  his  nephew ;   while  his  collateral  sister's  son  is  his  nephew, 

as  well  as  his  own  sister's  son.    The  former  is  distinguished  as  a  collateral  nephew. 

*  Pronounced  gcn'-ii-lcs,  it  may  be  remarked  to  those  unfamiliar  with  Latin. 


THE  IROQUOIS  GENS.  73 

son  of  adult  age  was  called  upon  to  express  his  or  her  prefer- 
ence, and  the  one  who  received  the  largest  number  of  affirma- 
tive declarations  was  nominated.  It  still  required  the  assent  of 
the  seven  remaining  gentes  before  the  nomination  ^\•as  complete. 
If  these  gentes,  who  met  for  the  purpose  by  phratries,  refused 
to  confirm  the  nomination  it  was  thereby  set  aside,  and  the 
gens  proceeded  to  make  another  choice.  When  the  person 
nominated  by  his  gens  was  accepted  by  the  remaining  gentes 
the  election  was  complete ;  but  it  was  still  necessary  that  the 
new  sachem  should  be  raised  up,  to  use  their  expression,  or  in- 
vested with  his  office  by  a  council  of  the  confederacy,  before 
he  could  enter  upon  its  duties.  It  was  their  method  of  con- 
ferring the  impcrimii.  In  this  manner  the  rights  and  inter- 
ests of  the  several  gentes  were  consulted  and  preserved  ;  for 
the  sachem  of  a  gens  was  ex  offieio  a  member  of  the  coun- 
cil of  the  tribe,  and  of  the  higher  council  of  the  confederacy. 
The  same  method  of  election  and  of  confirmation  existed  with 
respect  to  the  office  of  chief,  and  for  the  same  reasons.  But  a 
general  council  was  never  convened  to  raise  up  chiefs  below  the 
grade  of  a  sachem.  They  awaited  the  time  when  sachems  were 
invested. 

The  principle  of  democracy,  which  was  born  of  the  gentes, 
manifested  itself  in  the  retention  by  the  gentiles  of  the  right  to 
elect  their  sachem  and  chiefs,  in  the  safeguards  thrown  around 
the  office  to  prevent  usurpation,  and  in  the  check  upon  the  elec- 
tion held  by  the  remaining  gentes. 

The  chiefs  in  each  gens  were  usually  proportioned  to  the 
number  of  its  members.  Among  the  Seneca-Iroquois  there  is 
one  chief  for  about  every  fifty  persons.  They  now  number  in 
New  York  some  three  thousand,  and  have  eight  sachems  and 
about  sixty  chiefs.  There  are  reasons  for  supposing  that  the 
proportionate  number  is  now  greater  than  in  former  times. 
With  respect  to  the  number  of  gentes  in  a  tribe,  the  more 
numerous  the  people  the  greater,  usually,  the  number  of  gen- 
tes. The  number  varied  in  the  different  tribes,  from  three 
among  the  Delawares  and  Munsees  to  upwards  of  twenty 
among  the  Ojibwas  and  Creeks;  six,  eight,  and  ten  being  com- 
mon numbers. 


74 


ANCIENT  SOCIETY. 


II.  TJie  right  of  deposing  its  sachem  and  chiefs. 

This  right,  which  was  not  less  important  than  that  to  elect, 
was  reserved  by  the  members  of  the  gens.  Although  the 
office  was  nominally  for  life,  the  tenure  was  practically  during 
good  behavior,  in  consequence  of  the  power  to  depose.  The 
installation  of  a  sachem  was  symbolized  as  "putting  on  the 
horns,"  and  his  deposition  as  "taking  off  the  horns."  Among 
widely  separated  tribes  of  mankind  horns  have  been  made  the 
emblem  of  office  and  of  authority,  suggested  probably,  as  Ty- 
lor  intimates,  by  the  commanding  appearance  of  the  males 
among  ruminant  animals  bearing  horns.  Unworthy  behavior, 
followed  by  a  loss  of  confidence,  furnished  a  sufficient  ground 
for  deposition.  When  a  sachem  or  chief  had  been  deposed  in 
due  form  by  a  council  of  his  gens,  he  ceased  thereafter  to  be 
recognized  as  such,  and  became  thenceforth  a  private  person. 
The  council  of  the  tribe  also  had  power  to  depose  both  sachems 
and  chiefs,  without  waiting  for  the  action  of  the  gens,  and  even 
against  its  wishes.  Through  the  existence  and  occasional  ex- 
ercise of  this  power  the  supremacy  of  the  gentiles  over  their 
sachem  and  chiefs  was  asserted  and  preserved.  It  also  reveals 
the  democratic  constitution  of  the  gens. 

III.  The  obligatiojt  not  to  Diarry  in  the  gens. 

Although  a  negative  proposition  it  was  fundamental.  It  was 
evidently  a  primary  object  of  the  organization  to  isolate  a 
moiety  of  the  descendants  of  a  supposed  founder,  and  prevent 
their  intermarriage  for  reasons  of  kin.  When  the  gens  came 
into  existence  brothers  were  intermarried  to  each  other's  wives 
in  a  group,  and  sisters  to  each  other's  husbands  in  a  group,  to 
which  the  gens  interposed  no  obstacle.  But  it  sought  to  ex- 
clude brothers  and  sisters  from  the  marriage  relation  which  was 
effected,  as  there  are  good  reasons  for  stating,  by  the  prohi- 
bition in  question.  Had  the  gens  attempted  to  uproot  the  en- 
tire conjugal  system  of  the  period  by  its  direct  action,  there  is 
not  the  slightest  probability  that  it  would  have  worked  its  way 
into  general  establishment.  The  gens,  originating  probably  in 
the  ingenuity  of  a  small  band  of  savages,  must  soon  have 
proved  its  utility  in  the  production  of  superior  men.  Its  nearly 
universal  prevalence  in  the  ancient  world  is  the  highest  evidence 


THE  IROQUOIS  GENS. 


75 


of  the  advantages  it  conferred,  and  of  its  adaptability  to  human 
wants  in  savagery  and  in  barbarism.  The  Iroquois  still  adhere 
inflexibly  to  the  rule  which  forbids  persons  to  marry  in  their 
own  gens. 

TV.  Mutual  rights  of  inheritance  of  the  property  of  deceased 
fnembers. 

In  the  Status  of  savagery,  and  in  the  Lower  Status  of  bar- 
barism, the  amount  of  property  was  small.  It  consisted  in  the 
former  condition  of  personal  effects,  to  which,  in  the  latter, 
were  added  possessory  rights  in  joint-tenement  houses  and  in 
gardens.  The  most  valuable  personal  articles  were  buried  with 
the  body  of  the  deceased  owner.  Nevertheless,  the  question 
of  inheritance  was  certain  to  arise,  to  increase  in  importance 
with  the  increase  of  property  in  variety  and  amount,  and  to 
result  in  some  settled  rule  of  inheritance.  Accordingly  we  find 
the  principle  established  low  down  in  barbarism,  and  even  back 
of  that  in  savagery,  that  the  property  should  remain  in  the 
gens,  and  be  distributed  among  the  gentiles  of  the  deceased 
owner.  It  was  customary  law  in  the  Grecian  and  Latin  gentes 
in  the  Upper  Status  of  barbarism,  and  remained  as  written  law 
far  into  civilization,  that  the  property  of  a  deceased  person 
should  remain  in  the  gens.  But  after  the  time  of  Solon  among 
the  Athenians  it  was  limited  to  cases  of  intestacy. 
>  The  question,  who  should  take  the  property,  has  given  rise 
I  to  three  great  and  successive  rules  of  inheritance.  First,  that 
it  should  be  distributed  among  the  gentiles  of  the  deceased 
owner.  This  was  the  rule  in  the  Lower  Status  of  barbarism, 
and  so  far  as  is  known  in  the  Status  of  savagery.  .Second, 
that  the  property  should  be  distributed  among  the  agnatic  kin- 
dred of  the  deceased  owner,  to  the  exclusion  of  the  remaininsf 
gentiles.  The  germ  of  this  rule  makes  its  appearance  in  the 
Lower  Status  of  barbarism,  and  it  probably  became  completely 
established  in  the  Middle  Status.  Third,  that  the  property 
should  be  inherited  by  the  children  of  the  deceased  owner,  to 
the  exclusion  of  the  remaining  agnates.  This  became  the  rule 
in  the  Upper  Status  of  barbarism. 

J      Theoretically,  the   Iroquois  were  under  the  first  rule;  but, 
'practically,  the  effects  of  a  deceased  person  were  appropriated 


76 


ANCIENT  SOCIETY. 


by  his  nearest  relations  within  the  gens.  In  the  case  of  a  male 
his  own  brothers  and  sisters  and  maternal  uncles  divided  his 
effects  among  themselves.  This  practical  limitation  of  the  in- 
heritance to  the  nearest  gentile  kin  discloses  the  germ  of  agnatic 
inheritance.  In  the  case  of  a  female  her  property  was  inherited 
by  her  children  and  her  sisters,  to  the  exclusion  of  her  brothers. 
In  every  case  the  property  remained  in  the  gens.  The  children 
of  the  deceased  males  took  nothing  from  their  father  because 
they  belonged  to  a  different  gens.  It  was  for  the  same  reason 
that  the  husband  took  nothing  from  the  wife,  or  the  wife  from 
her  husband.  These  mutual  rights  of  inheritance  strengthened 
the  autonomy  of  the  gens. 

V.  Reciprocal  obligations  of  help,  defense,  and  redress  of 
injuries. 

In  civilized  society  the  state  assumes  the  protection  of  per- 
sons and  of  property.  Accustomed  to  look  to  this  source  for 
the  maintenance  of  personal  rights,  there  has  been  a  corre- 
sponding abatement  of  the  strength  of  the  bond  of  kin.  But 
under  gentile  society  the  individual  depended  for  security  upon 
his  gens.  It  took  the  place  afterwards  held  by  the  state,  and 
possessed  the  requisite  numbers  to  render  its"  guardianship  ef- 
fective. Within  its  membership  the  bond  of  kin  was  a  pow- 
erful element  for  mutual  support.  To  wrong  a  person  w^as  to 
wrong  his  gens;  and  to  support  a  person  was  to  stand  behind 
him  with  the  entire  array  of  his  gentile  kindred. 

In  their  trials  and  difficulties  the  members  of  the  gens  assisted 
each  other.  Two  or  three  illustrations  may  be  given  from  the 
Indian  tribes  at  large.  Speaking  of  the  Mayas  of  Yucatan, 
Herrera  remarks,  that  "when  any  satisfaction  was  to  be  made 
for  damages,  if  he  who  was  adjudged  to  pay  was  like  to  be  re- 
duced to  poverty,  the  kindred  contributed."^  By  the  term  kin- 
dred, as  here  used,  we  are  justified  in  understanding  the  gens. 
And  of  the  Florida  Indians:  "When  a  brother  or  son  dies  the 
people  of  the  house  will  rather  starve  than  seek  anything  to  eat 
during  three  months,  but  the  kindred  and  relations  send  it  all 
in."^     Persons  who  removed  from  one  village  to  another  could 

'  History  of  America,  Lond.  ed.,  1 725,  Stevens'  Trans.,  iv,  171. 
»  lb.,  iv,  34. 


THE  IROQUOIS  GENS.  yy 

not  transfer  their  possessory  right  to  cultivated  lands  or  to  a  sec- 
tion of  a  joint-tenement  house  to  a  stranger;  but  must  leave 
them  to  his  gentile  kindred.  Herrera  refers  to  this  usage  among 
the  Indian  tribes  of  Nicaragua;  "He  that  removed  from  one 
town  to  another  could  not  sell  what  he  had,  but  must  leave  it  to 
his  nearest  relation."^  So  much  of  their  property  was  held  in 
joint  ownership  that  their  plan  of  life  would  not  admit  of  its 
alienation  to  a  person  of  another  gens.  Practically,  the  right 
to  such  property  was  possessory,  and  when  abandoned  it  reverted 
to  the  gens.  Garcilasso  de  la  Vega  remarks  of  the  tribes  of  the 
Peruvian  Andes,  that  "when  the  commonalty,  or  ordinary 
sort,  married,  the  communities  of  the  people  were  obliged  to 
build  and  provide  them  houses."^  For  communities,  as  here 
used,  we  are  justified  in  understanding  the  gens.  Herrera 
speaking  of  the  same  tribes  observes  that  "this  variety  of 
tongues  proceed  from  the  nations  being  divided  into  races, 
tribes,  or  clans. "^  Here  the  gentiles  were  required  to  assist 
newly  married  pairs  in  the  construction  of  their  houses. 

The  ancient  practice  of  blood  revenge,  which  has  prevailed 
so  widely  in  the  tribes  of  mankind,  had  its  birthplace  in  the 
gens.  It  rested  with  this  body  to  avenge  the  murder  of  one  of 
its  members.  Tribunals  for  the  trial  of  criminals  and  laws  pre- 
scribing their  punishment,  came  late  into  existence  in  gentile 
society;  but  they  made  their  appearance  before  the  institution 
of  political  society.  On  the  other  hand,  the  crime  of  murder  is 
as  old  as  human  society,  and  its  punishment  by  the  revenge  of 
kinsmen  is  as  old  as  the  crime  itself.  Among  the  Iroquois  and 
other  Indian  tribes  generally,  the  obligation  to  avenge  the 
murder  of  a  kinsman  was  universally  recognized.* 

It  was,  however,  the  duty  of  the  gens  of  the  slayer,  and  of 
the  slain,  to  attempt  an  adjustment  of  the  crime  before  proceed- 
ing to  extremities.     A  council  of  the  members  of  each  gens 

1  History  of  America,  iii,  298. 

'  Royal  Co7nmeniaries,  Lond.  ed.,  1688,  Rycaut's  Trans.,  p.  107. 

''Herrera,  iv,  231. 

■•  "Their  hearts  burn  violently  day  and  night  without  intermission  till  th?y  have 
shed  blood  for  blood.  They  transmit  from  father  to  son  the  memory  of  the  loss 
of  their  relations,  or  one  of  their  own  tribe,  or  family,  though  it  was  an  old 
woman." — Adair's  Hist.  Amer.  Indians,  Lond.  ed.,  1775,  p.  150. 


78  ANCIENT  SOCIETY. 

was  held  separately,  and  propositions  were  made  in  behalf  of 
the  murderer  for  a  condonation  of  the  act,  usually  in  the  nature 
of  expressions  of  regret  and  of  presents  of  considerable  value. 
If  there  were  justifying  or  extenuating  circumstances  it  gener- 
ally resulted  in  a  composition;  but  if  the  gentile  kindred  of  the 
slain  person  were  implacable,  one  or  more  avengers  were  ap- 
pointed by  his  gens  from  among  its  members,  whose  duty  it 
was  to  pursue  the  criminal  until  discovered,  and  then  to  slay 
him  wherever  he  might  be  found.  If  they  accomplished  the 
deed  it  was  no  ground  of  complaint  by  any  member  of  the 
eens  of  the  victim.  Life  having  answered  for  life  the  demands 
of  justice  were  appeased. 

The  same  sentiment  of  fraternity  manifested  itself  in  other 
ways  in  relieving  a  fellow  gentilis  in  distress,  and  in  protecting 
him  from  injuries. 

VI.  The  right  of  bestozuing  names  upon  its  members. 
Among  savage  and  barbarous  tribes  there  is  no  name  for  the 
family.  The  personal  names  of  individuals  of  the  same  family 
do  not  indicate  any  family  connection  between  them.  The 
family  name  is  no  older  than  civilization.^  Indian  personal 
names,  however,  usually  indicate  the  gens  of  the  individual  to 
persons  of  other  gentes  in  the  same  tribe.  As  a  rule  each  gens 
had  names  for  persons  that  were  its  special  property,  and,  as 
such,  could  not  be  used  by  other  gentes  of  the  same  tribe.  A 
gentile  name  conferred  of  itself  gentile  rights.  These  names 
either  proclaimed  by  their  signification  the  ^ens  to  which  they 
belonged,  or  were  known  as  such  by  common  reputation.^ 

After  the  birth  of  a  child  a  name  was  selected  by  its  mother 
from  those  not  in  use  belonging  to  the  gens,  with  the  concur- 
rence of  her  nearest  relatives,  which  was  then  bestowed  upon 

'  Mommsen's  History  of  Rome,  Scribner's  ed.,  Dickson's  Trans.,  i,  49. 
*  One  of  the  twelve  gentes  of  the  Omahas  is  Lii'-ta-da,  the  Pigeon-Hawk,  which 
has,  among  others,  the  following  names  : 

Boys'  Names. 
Ah-hise'-na-da,  "Long  Wing." 

Gla-dan'-noh-che,  "Hawk  balancing  itself  in  the  air." 
Nes-tase'-ka,  "White-Eyed  Bird." 

Girls'  Names. 
Me-ta'-na,  "Bird  singing  at  daylight." 
La-ta-da'-win,  "One  of  the  Birds." 
Wa-ta'  na,  "Bird's  Egg." 


THE  IROQUOIS  GENS.  79 

the  infant.  But  the  child  was  not  fully  christened  until  its 
birth  and  name,  together  with  the  name  and  gens  of  its  mother 
and  the  name  of  its  father,  had  been  announced  at  the  next  en- 
suing council  of  the  tribe.  Upon  the  death  of  a  person  his 
name  could  not  be  used  again  in  the  life-time  of  his  oldest 
surviving  son  without  the  consent  of  the  latter.^ 

Two  classes  of  names  were  in  use,  one  adapted  to  childhood, 
and  the  other  to  adult  life,  which  were  exchanged  at  the  proper 
period  in  the  same  formal  manner;  one  being  taken  away,  to 
use  their  expression,  and  the  other  bestowed  in  its  place.      0- 
zui'-go,  a  canoe  floating  dozvn  the  stream,  and  Ah-zvon'-ne-ont, 
hanging flozver,  are  names  for  girls  among  the  Seneca-Iroquois; 
and     Gd-nc-o-di' -yo,    Jiandsomc    lake,    and    Do-7ie-ho-gd' -zveh 
door-keeper,  are  names  of  adult  males.     At  the  age  of  sixteen 
or  eighteen,  the  first  name  was  taken  away,  usually  by  a  chief 
of  the  gens,  and  one  of  the  second  class  bestowed  in  its  place. 
At  the  next  council  of  the   tribe  the  change  of  names   was 
publicly  announced,  after  which  the  person,  if  a  male,  assumed 
the  duties  of  manhood.      In  some  Indian  tribes  the  youth  was 
required  to  go  out  upon  the  war-path  and  earn  his  second  name 
by  some  act  of  personal  bravery.     After  a  severe  illness  it  was 
not  uncommon  for  the  person,   from  superstitious  considera- 
tions, to  solicit  and  obtain  a  second  change  of  name.      It  was 
sometimes  done  again  in  extreme  old  age.     When  a  person 
was  elected  a  sachem  or  a  chief  his  name  was  taken  away,  and 
a  new  one  conferred  at  the  time  of  his  installation.     The  indi- 
vidual had  no  control  over  the  question  of  a  change.      It  is  the 
prerogative  of  the  female  relatives  and  of  the  chiefs;  but  an 
adult  person  might  change  his  name  provided  he  could  induce 
a  chief  to  announce  it  in  council.     A  person  having  the  control 
of  a  particular  name,  as  the  eldest  son  of  that  of  his  deceased 
father,  might  lend  it  to  a  friend  in  another  gens;  but  after  the 
death  of  the  person  thus  bearing  it  the  name  reverted  to  the 
gens  to  which  it  belonged. 

Among  the  Shawnees  and  Delawares  the  mother  has  now 
the  right  to  name  her  child  into  any  gens  she  pleases;  and  the 

'  When  particular  usages  are  named  it  will  be  understood  they  are  Iroquois 
unless  the  contrary  is  stated. 


8o  ANCIENT  SOCIETY. 

name  given  transfers  the  child  to  the  gens  to  which  the  name 
belongs.  But  this  is  a  wide  departure  from  archajc  usages, 
and  exceptional  in  practice.  It  tends  to  corrupt  and  confound 
the  gentile  lineage.  The  names  now  in  use  among  the  Iroquois 
and  among  other  Indian  tribes  are,  in  the  main,  ancient  names 
handed  down  in  the  gentes  from  time  immemorial. 

The  precautions  taken  with  respect  to  the  use  of  names  be- 
longing to  the  gens  sufficiently  prove  the  importance  attached 
to  them,  and  the  gentile  rights  they  confer. 

Although  this  question  of  personal  names  branches  out  in 
many  directions  it  is  foreign  to  my  purpose  to  do  more  than 
illustrate  such  general  usages  as  reveal  the  relations  of  the 
rhiembers  of  a  gens.  In  familiar  intercourse  and  in  formal  salu- 
tation the  American  Indians  address  each  other  by  the  term  of 
relationship  the  person  spoken  to  sustains  to  the  speaker. 
When  related  they  salute  by  kin;  when  not  related  "my 
friend"  is  substituted.  It  would  be  esteemed  an  act  of  rude- 
ness to  address  an  Indian  by  his  personal  name,  or  to  inquire 
his  name  directly  from  himself. 

Our  Saxon  ancestors  had  single  personal  names  down  to  the 
Norman  conquest,  with  none  to  designate  the  family.  This  indi- 
cates the  late  appearance  of  the  monogamian  family  among 
them  ;  and  it  raises  a  presumption  of  the  existence  in  an  earlier 
period  of  a  Saxon  gens. 

VII.    TJic  rig  Jit  of  adopting  strangers  into  the  gens. 

Another  distinctive  right  of  the  gens  was  that  of  admitting 
new  members  by  adoption.  Captives  taken  in  war  were  either 
put  to  death,  or  adopted  into  some  gens.  Women  and  chil- 
dren taken  prisoners  usually  experienced  clemency  in  this  form. 
Adoption  not  only  conferred  gentile  rights,  but  also  the  nation- 
ality of  the  tribe.  The  person  adopting  a  captive  placed  him 
or  her  in  the  relation  of  a  brother  or  sister  ;  if  a  mother  adopt- 
ed, in  that  of  a  son  or  daughter ;  and  ever  afterwards  treated 
the  person  in  all  respects  as  though  born  in  that  relation. 
Slavery,  which  in  the  Upper  Status  of  barbarism  became  the 
fate  of  the  captive,  was  unknown  among  tribes  in  the  Lower 
Status  in  the  aboriginal  period.  The  gauntlet  also  had  some 
connection  with   adoption,   since  the  person   who    succeeded, 


THE  IROQ  UOIS  GENS  8 1 

through  hardihood  or  favoritism,  in  running  through  the  Hnes 
in  safety  was  entitled  to  this  reward.  Captives  when  adopted 
were  often  assigned  in  the  family  the  places  of  deceased  persons 
slain  in  battle,  in  order  to  fill  up  the  broken  ranks  of  relatives. 
A  declining  gens  might  replenish  its  numbers,  through  adop- 
tion, although  such  instances  are  rare.  At  one  time  the  Hawk 
gens  of  the  Senecas  were  reduced  to  a  small  number  of  persons, 
and  its  extinction  became  imminent.  To  save  the  gens  a  num- 
ber of  persons  from  the  Wolf  gens  by  mutual  consent  were 
transferred  in  a  body  by  adoption  to  that  of  the  Hawk.  The 
right  to  adopt  seems  to  be  left  to  the  discretion  of  each  gens. 

Among  the  Iroquois  the  ceremony  of  adoption  was  per- 
formed at  a  public  council  of  the  tribe,  which  turned  it  practi- 
cally into  a  religious  rite.^ 

Vni.  Religious  7'itcs  in  the  gens.      Query. 

Among  the  Grecian  and  Latin  tribes  these  rites  held  a  con- 
spicuous position.  The  highest  polytheistic  form  of  religion 
Avhich  had  then  appeared  seems  to  have  sprung  from  the  gen- 
tes  in  v/hich  religious  rites  were  constantly  maintained.  Some 
of  them,  from  the  sanctity  they  were  supposed  to  possess,  were 
nationalized.  In  some  cities  the  office  of  high  priest  of  certain 
divinities  was  hereditary  in  a  particular  gens.^  The  gens  became 
the  natural  centre  of  religious  growth  and  the  birthplace  of 
religious  ceremonies. 

But  the  Indian  tribes,  although  they  had  a  polytheistic  sys- 
tem, not  much  unlike  that  from  which  the  Grecian  and  Roman 
must  have  sprung,  had  not  attained  that  religious  development 
which  was  so  strongly  impressed  upon  the  gentes  of  the  latter 
tribes.     It  can  scarcely  be  said  any  Indian  gens  had  special 

'  After  the  people  had  assembled  at  the  council  house  one  of  the  chiefs  made  an 
address  giving  some  account  of  the  person,  the  reason  for  his  adoption,  the  name 
and  gens  of  the  person  adopting,  and  the  name  bestowed  upon  the  novitiate. 
Two  chiefs  taking  the  person  by  the  arms  then  marched  with  him  through  the 
council  house  and  back,  chanting  the  song  of  adoption.  To  this  the  people 
responded  in  musical  chorus  at  the  end  of  each  verse.  The  march  continued 
until  the  verses  were  ended,  which  required  three  rounds.  With  this  the  ceremony 
concluded.  Americans  are  sometimes  adopted  as  a  compliment.  It  fell  to  my  lot 
some  years  ago  to  be  thus  adopted  into  the  Hawk  gens  of  the  Senecas,  when  this 
ceremony  was  repeated. 

'  Grote's  Hist,  of  Greece,  i,  194. 

6 


82  ANCIENT  SOCIETY. 

religious  rites ;  and  yet  their  religious  worship  had  a  more  or 
less  direct  connection  with  the  gentes.  It  was  here  that  reli- 
gious ideas  would  naturally  germinate  and  that  forms  of  wor- 
ship would  be  instituted.  But  they  would  expand  from  the 
gens  over  the  tribe,  rather  than  remain  special  to  the  gens. 
Accordingly  we  find  among  the  Iroquois  six  annual  religious 
festivals,  (Maple,  Planting,  Berry,  Green-Corn,  Harvest,  and 
New  Years  Festivals)^  which  were  common  to  all  the  gentes 
united  in  a  tribe,  and  which  were  observed  at  stated  seasons 
of  the  year.  .. 

Each  gens  furnished  a  number  of  "  Keepers  of  the  Faith," 
both  male  and  female,  who  together  were  charged  with  the 
celebration  of  these  festivals.^  The  number  'advanced  to  this 
office  by  each  was  regarded  as  evidence  of  the  fidelity  of  the 
gens  to  religion.  They  designated  the  days  for  holding  the 
festivals,  made  the  necessary  arrangements  for  their  celebration, 
and  conducted  the  ceremonies  in  conjunction  with  the  sachems 
and  chiefs  of  the  tribe,  who  were,  ex  officio,  "Keepers  of  the 
Faith."  With  no  official  head,  and  none  of  the  marks  of  a 
priesthood,  their  functions  were  equal.  The  female  "Keepers 
of  the  Faith"  v/ere  more  especially  charged  with  the  prepara- 
tion of  the  feast,  which  was  provided  at  all  councils  at  the  close 
of  each  day  for  all  persons  in  attendance.  It  was  a  dinner  in 
common.  The  religious  rites  appertaining  to  these  festivals, 
which  have  been  described  in  a  previous  work,^  need  not  be 
considered  further  than  to  remark,  that  their  worship  was 
one  of  thanksgiving,  with  invocations  to  the  Great  Spirit,  and 
to  the  Lesser  Spirits  to  continue  to  them  the  blessings  of  life. 

With  the  progress  of  mankind  out  of  the  Lower  into  the 

1  League  of  the  Iroquois,  p.  182. 

2  The  "Keepers  of  the  Faith"  were  about  as  numerous  as  the  chiefs,  and  were 
selected  by  the  wise-men  and  matrons  of  each  gens.  After  their  selection  they 
were  raised  up  by  a  council  of  the  tribe  with  ceremonies  adapted  to  the  occasion. 
Their  names  were  taken  away  and  new  ones  belonging  to  this  class  bestowed  in 
their  place.  Men  and  women  in  about  equal  numbers  were  chosen.  They  were 
censors  of  the  people,  with  power  to  report  the  evil  deeds  of  persons  to  the 
council.  It  was  the  duty  of  individuals  selected  to  accept  the  office;  but  after  a 
reasonable  service  each  might  relinquish  it,  which  was  done  by  dropping  his  name 
as  a  Keeper  of  the  Faith,  and  resuming  his  former  name. 

3  League  of  the  Iroquois,  p.  182. 


THE  IROQUOIS  GENS.  83 

Middle,  and  more  especially  out  of  the  latter  into  the  Upper 
Status  of  barbarism,  the  gens  became  more  the  centre  of  relig- 
ious influence  and  the  source  of  religious  development.  We 
have  only  the  grosser  part  of  the  Aztec  religious  system;  but 
in  addition  to  national  gods,  there  seem  to  have  been  other 
gods,  belonging  to  smaller  divisions  of  the  people  than  the 
phratries.  The  existence  of  an  Aztec  ritual  and  priesthood 
would  lead  us  to  expect  aniong  them  a  closer  connection  of  re- 
ligious rites  with  the  gentes  than  is  found  among  the  Iroquois; 
but  their  religious  beliefs  and  observances  are  under  the  same 
cloud  of  obscurity  as  their  social  organization. 
IX.  A  common  burial  place. 

An  ancient  but  not  exclusive  mode  of  burial  was  by  scaffold- 
ing the  body  until  the  flesh  had  wasted,  after  which  the  bones 
were  collected  and  preserved  in  bark  barrels  in  a  house  con- 
structed for  their  reception.  Those  belonging  to  the  same 
gens  were  usually  placed  in  the  same  house.  The  Rev.  Dr. 
Cyrus  Byington  found  these  practices  among  the  Choctas  in 
1827;  and  Adair  mentions  usages  among  the  Cherokees  sub- 
stantially the  same.  "I  saw  three  of  them,"  he  remarks,  "in 
one  of  their  towns  pretty  near  each  other;  *  *  *  Each 
house  contained  the  bones  of  one  tribe  separately,  with  the 
hieroglyphical  figures  of  each  family  [gens]  on  each  of  the  odd- 
shaped  arks.  They  reckoned  it  irreligious  to  mix  the  bones  of 
a  relative  with  those  of  a  stranger,  as  bone  of  bone  and  flesh 
of  flesh  should  always  be  joined  together."^  The  Iroquois  in 
ancient  times  used  scaffolds  and  preserved  the  bones  of  de- 
ceased relatives  in  bark  barrels,  often  keeping  them  in  the 
house  they  occupied.  They  also  buried  in  the  ground.  In  the 
latter  case  those  of  the  same  gens  were  not  always  buried  lo- 
cally together  unless  they  had  a  common  cemetery  for  the  vil- 
lage. The  late  Rev.  Ashur  Wright,  so  long  a  missionary 
among  the  Senecas,  and  a  noble  specimen  of  the  American 
missionary,  wrote  to  the  author  as  follows;  "I  find  no  trace  of 
the  influence  of  clanship  in  the  burial  places  of  the  dead.  I 
believe  that  they  buried  promiscuously.  However,  they  say 
that  formerly  the  members  of  the  different  clans  more  fre- 
'  History  of  the  American  Indians,  p.  183. 


84  ANCIENT  SOCIETY. 

quently  resided  together  than  they  do  at  the  present  time.  As 
one  family  they  were  more  under  the  influence  of  family  feel- 
ing, and  had  less  of  individual  interest.  Hence,  it  might  occa- 
sionally happen  that  a  large  proportion  of  the  dead  in  some 
particular  burying  place  might  be  of  the  same  clan."  Mr. 
Wright  is  undoubtedly  correct  that  in  a  particular  cemetery 
members  of  all  the  gentes  established  in  a  village  would  be 
buried;  but  they  might  keep  those  of  the  same  gens  locally 
together.  An  illustration  in  point  is  now  found  at  the  Tus- 
carora  reservation  near  Lewiston,  where  the  tribe  has  one  com- 
mon cemetery,  and  where  individuals  of  the  same  gens  are 
buried  in  a  row  by  themselves.  One  row  is  composed  of  the 
graves  of  the  deceased  members  of  the  Beaver  gens,  two  rows 
of  the  members  of  the  Bear  gens,  one  row  of  the  Gray  Wolf, 
one  of  the  Great  Turtle,  and  so  on  to  the  number  of  eight 
rows.  Husband  and  wife  are  separated  from  each  other  and 
buried  in  different  rows;  fathers  and  their  children  the  same; 
but  mothers  and  their  children  and  brothers  and  sisters  are 
found  in  the  same  row.  It  shows  the  power  of  gentile  feeling, 
and  the  quickness  with  which  ancient  usages  are  reverted  to 
under  favorable  conditions;  for  the  Tuscaroras  are  now  chris- 
tianized without  surrendering  the  practice.  An  Onondaga  In- 
dian informed  the  writer  that  the  same  mode  of  burial  by 
gentes  now  prevailed  at  the  Onondaga  and  Oneida  cemeteries. 
While  this  usage,  perhaps,  cannot  be  declared  general  among 
the  Indian  tribes,  there  was  undoubtedly  in  ancient  times  a 
tendency  to,>  and  preference  for  this  mode  of  burial. 

Among  the  Iroquois,  and  what  is  true  of  them  is  generally 
true  of  other  Indian  tribes  in  the  same  status  of  advancement, 
all  the  members  of  the  gens  are  mourners  at  the  funeral  of  a 
deceased  gentilis.  The  addresses  at  the  funeral,  the  prepara- 
tion of  the  grave,  and  the  burial  of  the  body  were  performed 
by  members  of  other  gentes. 

The  Village  Indians  of  Mexico  and  Central  America  prac- 
ticed a  slovenly  cremation,  as  well  as  scaffolding,  and  burying 
in  the  ground.  The  former  was  confined  to  chiefs  and  promi- 
nent men. 

X.  A  council  of  the  got s. 

The  council  was  the  great  feature  of  ancient  society,   Asi- 


THE  IROQUOIS  GENS.  85 

atic,  European  and  American,  from  the  institution  of  the  gens 
in  savagery  to  civiHzation.  It  was  the  instrument  of  govern- 
ment as  well  as  the  supreme  authority  over  the  gens,  the  tribe, 
and  the  confederacy.  Ordinary  affairs  were  adjusted  by  the 
chiefs;  but  those  of  general  interest  were  submitted  to  the  de- 
termination of  a  council.  As  the  council  sprang  from  the  gen- 
tile organization  the  two  institutions  have  come  down  together 
through  the  ages.  The  Council  of  Chiefs  represents  the  an- 
cient method  of  evolving  the  wisdom  of  mankind  and  applying 
it  to  human  affairs.  Its  history,  gentile,  tribal,  and  confederate, 
would  express  the  growth  of  the  idea  of  government  in  its 
whole  development,  until  political  society  supervened  into 
which  the  council,  changed  into  a  senate,  was  transmitted. 

The  simplest  and  lowest  form  of  the  council  was  that  of  the 
gens.  It  was  a  democratic  assembly  because  every  adult  male 
and  female  member  had  a  voice  upon  all  questions  brought 
before  it.  It  elected  and  deposed  its  sachem  and  chiefs,  it 
elected  Keepers  of  the  Faith,  it  condoned  or  avenged  the  mur- 
der of  a  gentilis,  and  it  adopted  persons  into  the  gens.  It  was 
the  germ  of  the  higher  council  of  the  tribe,  and  of  that  still 
higher  of  the  confederacy,  each  of  which  was  composed  ex- 
clusively of  chiefs  as  representatives  of  the  gentes. 

Such  were  the  rights  privileges  and  obligations  of  the  mem- 
bers of  an  Iroquois  gens;  and  such  were  those  of  the  members 
of  the  gentes  of  the  Indian  tribes  generally,  as  far  as  the  in- 
vestigation has  been  carried.  When  the  gentes  of  the  Grecian 
and  Latin  tribes  are  considered,  the  same  rights  privileges  and 
obligations  will  be  found  to  exist,  with  the  exception  of  the  I, 
II,  and  VI;  and  with  respect  to  these  their  ancient  existence  is 
probable  though  the  proof  is  not  perhaps  attainable. 

All  the  members  of  an  Iroquois  gens  were  personally  free, 
and  they  were  bound  to  defend  each  other's  freedom;  they  were 
equal  in  privileges  and  in  personal  rights,  the  sachem  and  chiefs 
claiming  no  superiority;  and  they  were  a  brotherhood  bound 
together  by  the  ties  of  kin.  Liberty,  equality,  and  fraternity, 
though  never  formulated,  were  cardinal  principles  of  the  gens. 
These  facts  are  material,  because  the  gens  was  the  unit  of  a 
isocial  and  governmental   system,  the  foundation    upon  which 


86  ANCIENT  SOCIETY. 

Indian  society  was  organized.  A  structure  composed  of  such 
units  would  of  necessity  bear  the  impress  of  their  character,  for 
as  the  unit  so  the  compound.  It  serves  to  explain  that  sense 
of  independence  and  personal  dignity  universally  an  attribute 
of  Indian  character. 

Thus  substantial  and  important  in  the  social  system  was  the 
gens  as  it  anciently  existed  among  the  American  aborigines,  and 
as  it  still  exists  in  full  vitality  in  many  Indian  tribes.  It  was  the 
basis  of  the  phratry,  of  the  tribe,  and  of  the  confederacy  of 
tribes.  Its  functions  might  have  been  presented  more  elaborate- 
ly in  several  particulars;  but  sufficient  has  been  given  to  show 
its  permanent  and  durable  character. 

At  the  epoch  of  European  discovery  the  American  Indian 
tribes  generally  were  organized  in  gentes,  with  descent  in  the 
female  line.  In  some  tribes,  as  among  the  Dakotas,  the  gentes 
had  fallen  out;  in  others,  as  among  the  Ojibwas,  the  Omahas, 
and  the  Mayas  of  Yucatan,  descent  had  been  changed  from  the 
female  to  the  male  line.  Throughout  aboriginal  America  the 
gens  took  its  name  from  some  animal,  or  inanimate  object,  and 
never  from  a  person.  In  this  early  condition  of  society,  the 
individuality  of  persons  was  lost  in  the  gens.  It  is  at  least 
presumable  that  the  gentes  of  the  Grecian  and  Latin  tribes  were 
so  named  at  some  anterior  period;  but  when  they  first  came 
under  historical  notice,  they  were  named  after  persons.  In 
some  of  the  tribes,  as  the  Moqui  Village  Indians  of  New  Mexico, 
the  members  of  the  gens  claimed  their  descent  from  the  animal 
whose  name  they  bore — their  remote  ancestors  having  been 
transformed  by  the  Great  Spirit  from  the  animal  into  the  human 
form.  The  Crane  gens  of  the  Ojibwas  have  a  similar  legend. 
In  some  tribes  the  members  of  a  gens  will  not  eat  the  animal 
whose  name  they  bear,  in  which  they  are  doubtless  influenced 
by  this  consideration. 

With  respect  to  the  number  of  persons  in  a  gens  it  varied 
with  the  number  of  the  gentes,  and  with  the  prosperity  or 
decadence  of  the  tribe.  Three  thousand  Senecas  divided 
equally  among  eight  gentes  would  give  an  average  of  three 
hundred  and  seventy-five  persons  to  a  gens.  Fifteen  thousand 
Ojibwas  divided  equally  among  tM''enty-three  gentes  would  give 


THE  IROQUOIS  GENS.  87 

six  hundred  and  fifty  persons  to  a  gens.  The  Cherokees  would 
average  more  than  a  thousand  to  a  gens.  In  the  present  con- 
dition of  the  principal  Indian  tribes  the  number  of  persons  in 
each  gens  would  range  from  one  hundred  to  a  thousand. 

One  of  the  oldest  and  most  widely  prevalent  institutions  of 
mankind,  the  gentes  have  been  closely  identified  with  human 
progress  upon  which  they  have  exercised  a  powerful  influence. 
They  have  been  found  in  tribes  in  the  Status  of  savagery,  in  the 
Lower,  in  the  Middle,  and  in  the  Upper  Status  of  barbarism  on 
different  continents,  and  in  full  vitality  in  the  Grecian  and  Latin 
tribes  after  civilization  had  commenced.  Every  family  of  man- 
kind, except  the  Polynesian,  seems  to  have  come  under  the 
gentile  organization,  and  to  have  been  indebted  to  it  for  preser- 
vation, and  for  the  means  of  progress.  It  finds  its  only  parallel 
in  length  of  duration  in  systems  of  consanguinity,  which, 
springing  up  at  a  still  earlier  period,  have  remained  to  the  pres- 
ent time,  although  the  marriage  usages  in  which  they  originated 
have  long  since  disappeared. 

From  its  early  institution,  and  from  its  maintenance  through 
such  immense  stretches  of  time,  the  peculiar  adaptation  of  the! 
gentile  organization  to  mankind,  while  in  a  savage  and  in  a\ 
barbarous  state,  must  be  regarded  as  abundantly  demonstrated.  ) 


CHAPTER  III. 

THE  IROQUOIS  PHRATRY. 

Definition  of  a  Phratry. — Kindred  Gentes  Reunited  in  a  Higher  Or- 
ganization.—Phratry  OF  the  Iroquois  Tribes. — Its  Composition. — Its 
Uses  and  Functions. — Social  and  Religious. — Illustrations. — The  An- 
alogue OF  THE  Grecian  Phratry;  but  in  its  Archaic  Form. — Phratries 
of  the  Choctas. — Of  the  Chickasas. — Of  the  Mohegans. — Of  the  Thlin- 
KEETS. — Their  Probable  Universality  in  the  Tribes  of  the  American 
Aborigines. 

The  phratry  {qjparpia)  is  a  brotherhood,  as  the  term  im- 
ports, and  a  natural  growth  from  the  organization  into  gentes. 
It  is  an  organic  union  or  association  of  two  or  more  gentes  of 
the  same  tribe  for  certain  common  objects.  These  gentes  were 
usually  such  as  had  been  formed  by  the  segmentation  of  an 
original  gens. 

Among  the  Grecian  tribes,  where  the  phratric  organization 
was  nearly  as  constant  as  the  gens,  it  became  a  very  conspic- 
uous institution.  Each  of  the  four  tribes  of  the  Athenians  was 
organized  in  three  phratries,  each  composed  of  thirty  gentes, 
making  a  total  of  twelve  phratries  and  three  hundred  and  sixty 
gentes.  Such  precise  numerical  uniformity  in  the  composition 
of  each  phratry  and  tribe  could  not  have  resulted  from  the  sub- 
division of  gentes  through  natural  processes.  It  must  have 
been  produced,  as  Mr.  Grote  suggests,  by  legislative  procure- 
ment in  the  interests  of  a  symmetrical  organization.  All  the 
gentes  of  a  tribe,  as  a  rule,  were  of  common  descent  and  bore 
a  common  tribal  name,  consequently  it  would  not  require 
severe  constraint  to  unite  the  specified  number  in  each  phra- 


THE  IROQ  UOIS  PHRA  TR  Y.  89 

try,  and  to  form  the  specified  number  of  phratries  in  each 
tribe.  But  the  phratric  organization  had  a  natural  foundation 
in  the  immediate  kinship  of  certain  gentes  as  subdivisions  of  an 
original  gens,  which  undoubtedly  was  the  basis  on  which  the 
Grecian  phratry  was  originally  formed.  The  incorporation  of 
alien  gentes,  and  transfers  by  consent  or  constraint,  would  ex- 
plain the  numerical  adjustment  of  the  gentes  and  phratries  in 
the  Athenian  tribes. 

The  Roman  ctiria  was  the  analogue  of  the  Grecian  phratry. 
It  is  constantly  mentioned  by  Dionysius  as  a  phratry.^  There 
were  ten  gentes  in  each  curia,  and  ten  cicriae  in  each  of  the 
three  Roman  tribes,  making  thirty  curiae  and  three  hundred 
cfentes  of  the  Romans.  The  functions  of  the  Roman  curia  are 
much  better  known  than  those  of  the  Grecian  phratry,  and 
were  higher  in  degree  because  the  citria  entered  directly  into  the 
functions  of  government.  The  assembly  of  the  gentes  (comitia 
curiata JYoiQd  by  curiae,  each  having  one  collective  vote.  This 
assembly  was  the  sovereign  power  of  the  Roman  People  down 
to  the  time  of  Servius  Tullius. 

Among  the  functions  of  the  Grecian  phratry  was  the  observ- 
ance of  special  religious  rites,  the  condonation  or  revenge  of 
the  murder  of  a  phrator,  and  the  purification  of  a  murderer 
after  he  had  escaped  the  penalty  of  his  crime  preparatory  to 
his  restoration  to  society.^  At  a  later  period  among  the  Athe- 
nians— for  the  phratry  at  Athens  survived  the  institution  of 
political  society  under  Cleisthenes — it  looked  after  the  regis- 
tration of  citizens,  thus  becoming  the  guardian  of  descents  and 
of  the  evidence  of  citizenship.  The  wife  upon  her  marriage 
was  enrolled  in  the  phratry  of  her  husband,  and  the  children 
of  the  marriage  were  enrolled  in  the  gens  and  phratry  of  their 
father.  It  was  also  the  duty  of  this  organization  to  prosecute 
the  murderer  of  a  phrator  in  the  courts  of  justice.  These  are 
among  its  known  objects  and  functions  in  the  earlier  and  later 
periods.     Were  all  the  particulars  fully  ascertained,  the  phratry 

1  EiT}  5'  av  'EXXaSi  ylaorr^  rd  ov6/2ctra  ravra  ne^spixrjvEvofisva 
q)vXrj  nkv  xai  rpittvi  rj  rpifiovZ,  cppdrpa.  de  xai  Xoxoi  ?}  xovpia. 

— Dionysius,  lib.  II,  cap.  vii ;  and  vid.  lib.  II,  c.  xiii. 

*  That  purification  was  performed  by  the  phratry  is  intimated  by  ^schylus : 
Tioia  8k  x^P^^t  cppocrepoDv  Ttpoids^srau     — T/ie  Eumenides,  656. 


90 


ANCIENT  SOCIETY. 


would  probably  manifest  itself  in  connection  with  the  common 
tables,  the  public  games,  the  funerals  of  distinguished  men,  the 
earliest  army  organization,  and  the  proceedings  of  councils,  as 
well  as  in  the  observance  of  religious  rites  and  in  the  guard- 
ianship of  social  privileges. 

The  phratry  existed  in  a  large  number  of  the  tribes  of  the 
American  aborigines,  where  it  is  seen  to  arise  by  natural 
growth,  and  to  stand  as  the  second  member  of  the  organic 
series,  as  among  the  Grecian  and  Latin  tribes.  It  did  not 
possess  original  governmental  functions,  as  the  gens  tribe  and 
confederacy  possessed  them;  but  it  was  endowed  with  certain 
useful  powers  in  the  social  system,  from  the  necessity  for  some 
organization  larger  than  a  gens  and  smaller  than  a  tribe,  and 
especially  when  the  tribe  was  large.  The  same  institution  in 
essential  features  and  in  character,  it  presents  the  organization 
in  its  archaic  form  and  with  its  archaic  functions.  A  knowledge 
of  the  Indian  phratry  is  necessary  to  an  intelligent  understand- 
ing of  the  Grecian  and  the  Roman. 

The  eight  gentes  of  the  Seneca- Iroquois  tribe  were  reintegra- 
ted in  two  phratries  as  follows: 

First  Phratry. 
Gentes — i.  Bear.     2.  Wolf     3.  Beaver.     4.  Turtle. 

Second  Phratry. 
Gentes. — 5.  Deer.     6.  Snipe.     7.  Heron.     8.  Hawk. 

Each  phratry  (De-a-non-da'-a-yoh)  is  a  brotherhood  as  this 
term  also  imports.  The  gentes  in  the  same  phratry  are  brother 
gentes  to  each  other,  and  cousin  gentes  to  those  of  the  other 
phratry.  They  are  equal  in  grade  character  and  privileges.  It 
is  a  common  practice  of  the  Senecas  to  call  the  gentes  of  their 
own  phratry  brother  gentes,  and  those  of  the  other  phratry 
their  cousin  gentes,  when  they  mention  them  in  their  relation 
to  the  phratries.  Originally  marriage  was  not  allowed  between 
the  members  of  the  same  phratry;  but  the  members  of  either 
could  marry  into  any  gens  of  the  other.  This  prohibition  tends 
to  show  that  the  gentes  of  each  phratry  were  subdivisions  of 
an  original  gens,  and  therefore  the  prohibition  against  marrying 
into  a  person's  own  gens  had  followed  to  its  subdivisions.  This 
restriction,  however,  was  long    since    removed,    except    with 


THE  IROQ UOIS  J'HRA TRY.  9 1 

respect  to  the  gens  of  the  individual.  A  tradition  of  the  Sene- 
cas  affirms  that  the  Bear  and  the  Deer  were  the  original  gentes, 
of  which  the  others  were  subdivisions.  It  is  thus  seen  that  the 
phratry  had  a  natural  foundation  in  the  kinship  of  the  gentes 
of  which  it  was  composed.  After  their  subdivision  from 
increase  of  numbers  there  was  a  natural  tendency  to  their 
reunion  in  a  higher  organization  for  objects  common  to  them 
all.  The  same  gentes  are  not  constant  in  a  phratry  indefinite- 
ly, as  will  appear  when  the  composition  of  the  phratries  in  the 
remaining  Iroquois  tribes  is  considered.  Transfers  of  particular 
gentes  from  one  phratry  to  the  other  must  have  occurred  when 
the  equilibrium  in  their  respective  numbers  was  disturbed.  It 
is  important  to  know  the  simple  manner  in  which  this  organi- 
zation springs  up,  and  the  facility  with  which  it  is  managed,  as 
a  part  of  the  social  system  of  ancient  society.  With  the  in- 
crease of  numbers  in  a  gens,  followed  by  local  separation  of  its 
members,  segmentation  occurred,  and  the  seceding  portion 
adopted  a  new  gentile  name.  But  a  tradition  of  their  former 
unity  would  remain,  and  become  the  basis  of  their  reorganiza- 
tion in  a  phratry. 

In  like  manner  the  Cayuga-Iroquois  have  eight  gentes  in 
two  phratries;  but  these  gentes  are  not  divided  equally  between 
them.     They  are  the  following: 

First  Phratry. 
!   Gentes. — i.  Bear.     2.  Wolf     3.  Turtle.     4.  Snipe.     5.  Eel. 
Secojid  Phratry. 
Gejites. — 6.  Deer.     7.  Beaver.     8.  Hawk. 

Seven  of  these  gentes  are  the  same  as  those  of  the  Senecas; 
but  the  Heron  gens  has  disappeared,  and  the  Eel  takes  its 
place,  but  transferred  to  the  opposite  phratry.  The  Beaver  and 
the  Turtle  gentes  also  have  exchanged  phratries.  The  Cay u gas 
style  the  gentes  of  the  same  phratry  brother  gentes  to  each 
other,  and  those  of  the  opposite  phratry  their  cousin  gentes. 

The  Onondaga- Iroquois  have  the  same  number  of  gentes, 
but  two  of  them  differ  in  name  from  those  of  the  Senecas. 
They  are  organized  in  two  phratries  as  follows: 

First  Phratry. 
Gentes. — i.  Wolf      2.  Turtle.     3.  Snipe.     4.  Beaver.     5.  Ball. 


92 


ANCIENT  SOCIETY. 


Second  Phratry. 
Gentes. — 6.  Deer.     7.  Eel.     8.  Bear, 

Here  again  the  composition  of  the  phratries  is  different  from 
that  of  the  Senecas.  Three  of  the  gentes  in  the  first  phratry 
are  the  same  in  each;  but  the  Bear  gens  has  been  transferred 
to  the  opposite  phratry  and  is  now  found  with  the  Deer.  The 
division  of  gentes  is  also  unequal,  as  among  the  Cayugas.  The 
gentes  in  the  same  phratry  are  called  brother  gentes  to  each 
other,  and  those  in  the  other  their  cousin  gentes.  While  the 
Onondagas  have  no  Hawk,  the  Senecas  have  no  Eel  gens;  but 
the  members  of  the  two  fraternize  when  they  meet,  claiming 
that  there  is  a  connection  between  them. 

The  Mohawks  and  Oneidas  have  but  three  gentes,  the  Bear, 
the  Wolf,  and  the  Turtle,  and  no  phratries.  When  the  confed- 
eracy was  formed,  seven  of  the  eight  Seneca  gentes  existed  in 
the  several  tribes  as  is  shown  by  the  establishment  of  sachem- 
ships  in  them;  but  the  Mohawks  and  Oneidas  then  had  only 
the  three  named.  It  shows  that  they  had  then  lost  an  entire 
phratry,  and  one  gens  of  that  remaining,  if  it  is  assumed  that 
the  original  tribes  were  once  composed  of  the  same  gentes. 
When  a  tribe  organized  in  gentes  and  phratries  subdivides,  it 
might  occur  on  the  line  of  the  phratric  organization.  Al- 
though the  members  of  a  tribe  are  intermingled  throughout  by 
marriage,  each  gens  in  a  phratry  is  composed  of  females  with 
their  children  and  descendants,  through  females,  who  formed 
the  body  of  the  phratry.  They  would  incline  at  least  to  re- 
main locally  together,  and  thus  might  become  detached  in  a 
body.  The  male  members  of  the  gens  married  to  women  of 
other  gentes  and  remaining  with  their  wives  would  not  affect 
the  gens  since  the  children  of  the  males  do  not  belong  to  its 
connection.  If  the  minute  history  of  the  Indian  tribes  is  ever 
irecovered  it  must  be  sought  through  the  gentes  and  phratries, 
'which  can  be  followed  from  tribe  to  tribe.  In  such  an  investi- 
gation it  will  deserve  attention  whether  tribes  ever  disinte- 
grated by  phratries.      It  is  at  least  improbable. 

The  Tuscarora-Iroquois  became  detached  from  the  main 
stock  at  some  unknown  period  in  the  past,  and  inhabited  the 
Neuse  river  region  in  North  Carolina  at  the  time  of  their  dis- 


THE  IROQ  UOTS  PHRA  TR  V.  93 

covery.     About  A.  D.  17 12  they  were  forced  out  of  this  area, 

whereupon  they  removed  to  the  country  of  the  Iroquois  and 

were  admitted  into  the  confederacy  as  a  sixth  member.     They 

have  eight  gentes  organized  in  two  phratries,  as  follows: 

First  PJiratry. 

Gentes. — i.  Bear.     2.  Beaver.     3.   Great  Turtle.     4.  Eel. 

Second  Phratry. 

Gentes.—^.  Gray  Wolf     6.  Yellow   Wolf     7.  Little   Turtle. 

8.  Snipe. 
They  have  six  gentes  in  common  with  the  Cayugas  and  On- 
ondagas,  five  in  common  with  the  Senecas,  and  three  in  com- 
mon with  the  Mohawks  and  Oneidas.  The  Deer  gens,  which 
they  once  possessed,  became  extinct  in  modern  times.  It  will 
be  noticed,  also,  that  the  Wolf  gens  is  now  divided  into  two, 
the  Gray  and  the  Yellow,  and  the  Turtle  into  two,  the  Great 
and  Little.  Three  of  the  gentes  in  the  first  phratry  are  the 
same  with  three  in  the  first  phratry  of  the  Senecas  and  Cayu- 
gas, with  the  exception  that  the  Wolf  gens  is  double.  As 
several  hundred  years  elapsed  between  the  separation  of  the 
Tuscaroras  from  their  congeners  and  their  return,  it  affords 
some  evidence  of  permanence  in  the  existence  of  a  gens.  The 
gentes  in  the  same  phratry  are  called  brother  gentes  to  each 
I  other,  and  those  in  the  other  phratry  their  cousin  gentes,  as 
among  the  other  tribes. 

From  the  differences  in  the  composition  of  the  phratries  in 
the  several  tribes  it  seems  probable  that  the  phratries  are  mod- 
ified in  their  gentes  at  intervals  of  time  to  meet  changes  of  con- 
dition. Some  gentes  prosper  and  increase  in  numbers,  while 
others  through  calamities  decline,  and  others  become  extinct; 
so  that  transfers  of  gentes  from  one  phratry  to  another  were 
found  necessary  to  preserve  some  degree  of  equality  in  the 
number  of  phrators  in  each.  The  phratric  organization  has  ex- 
isted among  the  Iroquois  from  time  immemorial.  It  is  proba- 
bly older  than  the  confederacy  which  was  established  more 
than  four  centuries  ago.  The  amount  of  difference  in  their 
composition,  as  to  the  gentes  they  contain,  represents  the  vicis- 
situdes through  which  each  tribe  has  passed  in  the  interval. 
In  any  view  of  the  matter  it  is  small,  tending  to  illustrate  the 
permanence  of  the  phratry  as  well  as  the  gens. 


94 


ANCIENT  SOCIETY. 


The  Iroquois  tribes  had  a  total  of  thirty-eight  gentes,  ard  in 
four  of  the  tribes  a  total  of  eight  phratries. 

In  its  objects  and  uses  the  Iroquois  phratry  falls  below  the 
Grecian,  as  would  be  supposed,  although  our  knowledge  of  the 
functions  of  the  latter  is  limited ;  and  below  what  is  known  of 
the  uses  of  the  phratry  among  the  Roman  tribes.  In  com- 
paring the  latter  with  the  former  we  pass  backward  through 
two  ethnical  periods,  and  into  a  very  different  condition  of  so- 
ciety. The  difference  is  in  the  degree  of  progress,  and  not  in 
kind ;  for  we  have  the  same  institution  in  each  race,  derived 
from  the  same  or  a  similar  germ,  and  preserved  by  each 
through  immense  periods  of  time  as  a  part  of  a  social  system. 
Gentile  society  remained  of  necessity  among  the  Grecian  and 
Roman  tribes  until  political  society  supervened ;  and  it  re- 
mained among  the  Iroquois  tribes  because  they  were  still  two 
ethnical  periods  below  civilization.  Every  fact,  therefore,  in 
relation  to  the  functions  and  uses  of  the  Indian  phratry  is  im- 
portant, because  it  tends  to  illustrate  the  archaic  character  of 
an  institution  which  became  so  influential  in  a  more  developed 
condition  of  society. 

The  phratry,  among  the  Iroquois,  was  partly  for  social  and 
partly  for  religious  objects.  Its  functions  and  uses  can  be  best 
shown  by  practical  illustrations.  We  begin  with  the  lowest, 
with  games,  which  were  of  common  occurrence  at  tribal  and 
confederate  councils.  In  the  ball  game,  for  example,  among 
the  Senecas,  they  play  by  phratries,  one  against  the  other ; 
and  they  bet  against  each  other  upon  the  result  of  the  game. 
Each  phratry  puts  forward  its  best  players,  usually  from  six  to 
ten  on  a  side,  and  the  members  of  each  phratry  assemble  to- 
gether but  upon  opposite  sides  of  the  field  in  which  the  game 
is  played.  Before  it  commences,  articles  of  personal  property 
are  hazarded  upon  the  result  by  mem.bers  of  the  opposite  phra- 
tries. These  are  deposited  with  keepers  to  abide  the  event. 
The  game  is  played  with  spirit  and  enthusiasm,  and  is  an  excit- 
ing spectacle.  The  members  of  each  phratry,  from  their  op- 
posite stations,  watch  the  game  with  eagerness,  and  cheer 
their  respective  players  at  every  successful  turn  of  the  game.' 

League  of  the  Iroquois,  p.  294. 


THE  IROQ  UOIS  PHRA  TR  Y.  95 

In  many  ways  the  phratric  organization  manifested  itself. 
At  a  council  of  the  tribe  the  sachems  and  chiefs  in  each  phratry 
usually  seated  themselves  on  opposite  sides  of  an  imaginary 
council-fire,  and  the  speakers  addressed  the  two  opposite  bodies 
as  the  representatives  of  the  phratries.  Formalities,  such  as 
these,  have  a  a  peculiar  charm  for  the  Red  Man  in  the  trans- 
action of  business. 

Ag-ain  ;  when  a  murder  had  been  committed  it  was  usual  for 
the  gens  of  the  murdered  person  to  meet  in  council;  and, 
after  ascertaining  the  facts,  to  take  measures  for  avenging  the 
deed.  The  gens  of  the  criminal  also  held  a  council,  and 
endeavored  to  effect  an  adjustment  or  condonation  of  the 
crime  with  the  gens  of  the  murdered  person.  But  it  often 
happened  that  the  gens  of  the  criminal  called  upon  the  other 
gentes  of  their  phratry,  when  the  slayer  and  the  slain  belonged 
to  opposite  phratries,  to  unite  with  them  to  obtain  a  condonation 
of  the  crime.  In  such  a  case  the  phratry  held  a  council,  and 
then  addressed  itself  to  the  other  phratry  to  which  it  sent  a 
delegation  with  a  belt  of  white  wampum  asking  for  a  council  of 
the  phratry,  and  for  an  adjustment  of  the  crime.  They  offered 
reparation  to  the  family  and  gens  of  the  murdered  person  in 
expressions  of  regret  and  in  presents  of  value.  Negotiations 
were  continued  between  the  two  councils  until  an  affirmative  or 
a  negative  conclusion  was  reached.  The  influence  of  a  phratry 
composed  of  several  gentes  would  be  greater  than  that  of  a 
single  gens;  and  by  calling  into  action  the  opposite  phratry  the 
probability  of  a  condonation  would  be  increased,  especially  if 
there  were  extenuating  circumstances.  We  may  thus  see  how 
naturally  the  Grecian  phratry,  prior  to  civilization,  assumed  the 
principal  though  not  exclusive  management  of  cases  of  murder, 
and  also  of  the  purification  of  the  murderer  if  he  escaped 
punishment;  and,  after  the  institution  of  political  society,  with 
what  proprietry  the  phratry  assumed  the  duty  of  prosecuting 
the  murderer  in  the  courts  of  justice. 

At  the  funerals  of  persons  of  recognized  importance  in  the 
tribe,  the  phratric  organization  manifested  itself  in  a  conspicuous 
manner.  The  phrators  of  the  decedent  in  a  body  were  the 
mourners,  and  the  members  of  the  opposite  phratry  conducted 


96 


ANCIENT  SOCIETY. 


the  ceremonies.  In  the  case  of  a  sachem  it  was  usual  for  the 
opposite  phratry  to  send,  immediately  after  the  funeral,  the 
official  wampum  belt  of  the  deceased  ruler  to  the  central  council 
fire  at  Onondaga,  as  a  notification  of  his  demise.  This  was 
retained  until  the  installation  of  his  successor,  when  it  was 
bestowed  upon  him  as  the  insignia  of  his  office.  At  the  funeral 
of  Handsome  Lake  (Ga-ne-o-di'-yo),  one  of  the  eight  Seneca 
sachems  (which  occurred  some  years  ago),  there  was  an  assem- 
blage of  sachems  and  chiefs  to  the  number  of  twenty-seven,  and 
a  large  concourse  of  members  of  both  phratries.  The  customary 
address  to  the  dead  body,  and  the  other  addresses  before  the 
removal  of  the  body,  were  made  by  members  of  the  opposite 
phratry.  After  the  addresses  were  concluded,  the  body  was 
borne  to  the  grave  by  persons  selected  from  the  last  named 
phratry,  followed,  first,  by  the  sachems  and  chiefs,  then  by  the 
family  and  gens  of  the  decedent,  next  by  his  remaining  phrators, 
and  last  by  the  members  of  the  opposite  phratry.  After  the 
body  had  been  deposited  in  the  grave  the  sachems  and  chiefs 
formed  in  a  circle  around  it  for  the  purpose  of  filling  it  with 
earth.  Each  in  turn,  commencing  with  the  senior  in  years,  cast 
in  three  shovelfuls,  a  typical  number  in  their  religious  system; 
of  which  the  first  had  relation  to  the  Great  Spirit,  the  second  to 
the  Sun,  and  the  third  to  Mother  Earth.  When  the  grave  was 
filled  the  senior  sachem,  by  a  figure  of  speech,  deposited  "the 
horns"  of  the  departed  sachem,  emblematical  of  his  office,  upon 
the  top  of  the  grave  over  his  head,  there  to  remain  until  his 
successor  was  installed.  In  that  subsequent  ceremony,  "  the 
horns  "  were  said  to  be  taken  from  the  grave  of  the  deceased 
ruler,  and  placed  upon  the  head  of  his  successor.^  The  social 
and  religious  functions  of  the  phratry,  and  its  naturalness  in  the 
organic  system  of  ancient  society,  are  rendered  apparent  by  this 
single  usage. 

'  It  was  a  journey  of  ten  days  from  earth  to  heaven  for  the  departed  spirit, 
according  to  Iroquois  belief.  For  ten  days  after  the  death  of  a  person,  the 
mourners  met  nightly  to  lament  the  deceased,  at  which  they  indulged  in  excessive 
grief.  The  dirge  or  wail  was  performed  by  women.  It  was  an  ancient  custom  to 
make  a  fire  on  the  grave  each  night  for  the  same  period.  On  the  eleventh  day 
they  held  a  feast;  the  spirit  of  the  departed  having  reached  heaven,  the  place 
of  rest,  there  was  no  further  cause  for  mourning.     With  the  feast  it  terminated. 


THE  IROOUOIS  PHRATRY. 


97 


The  pliratiy  was  also  directly  concerned  in  the  election  of 
sachems  and  chiefs  of  the  several  gentes,  upon  which  they  had 
a  negative  as  well  as  a  confirmative  vote.  After  the  gens  of  a 
deceased  sachem  had  elected  his  successor,  or  had  elected  a 
chief  of  the  second  grade,  it  was  necessary,  as  elsewhere  stated, 
that  their  choice  should  be  accepted  and  confirmed  by  each 
phratry.  It  was  expected  that  the  gentes  of  the  same  phratry 
would  confirm  the  choice  almost  as  a  matter  of  course;  but 
the  opposite  phratry  also  must  acquiesce,  and  from  this  source 
opposition  sometimes  appeared.  A  council  of  each  phratry 
was  held  and  pronounced  upon  the  question  of  acceptance  or 
rejection.  If  the  nomination  made  was  accepted  by  both  it 
I  became  complete;  but  if  either  refused  it  was  thereby  set  aside, 
j  and  a  new  election  was  made  by  the  gens.  When  the  choice 
made  by  the  gens  had  been  accepted  by  the  phratries,  it  was 
still  necessary,  as  before  stated,  that  the  new  sachem,  or  the 
new  chief,  should  be  invested  by  the  council  of  the  con- 
federacy, which  alone  had  power  to  invest,  with  office. 

The  Senecas  have  now  lost  their  Medicine  Lodges  which  fell 
out  in  modern  times;  but  they  formerly  existed  and  formed  a 
prominent  part  of  their  religious  system.  To  hold  a  Medicine 
Lodge  was  to  observe. their  highest  religious  rites,  and  to  prac- 
tice their  highest  religious  mysteries.  They  had  two  such  or- 
ganizations, one  in  each  phratry,  Avhich  shows  still  further  the 
natural  connection  of  the  phratry  with  religious  observances. 
Very  little  is  now  known  concerning  these  lodges  or  their  cere- 
monies. Each  w^as  a  brotherhood,  into  which  new  members 
were  admitted  by  a  formal  initiation. 

The  phratry  was  without  governmental  functions  in  the  strict 
sense  of  the  phrase,  these  being  confined  to  the  gens  tribe  and 
confederacy;  but  it  entered  into  their  social  affairs  with  large 
administrative  powers,  and  would  have  concerned  itself  more 
and  more  with  their  religious  affairs  as  the  condition  of  the 
people  advanced.  Unlike  the  Grecian  phratry  and  the  Roman 
curia  it  had  no  official  head.  There  was  no  chief  of  the  phra- 
try as  such,  and  no  religious  functionaries  belonging  to  it  as 
distinguished  from  the  gens  and  tribe.  The  phratric  institu- 
tion among  the  Iroquois  was  in  its  rudimentary  archaic  form; 
7 


98  ANCIENT  SOCIETY. 

but  it  grew  into  life  by  natural  and  inevitable  development, 
and  remained  permanent  because  it  met  necessary  wants. 
Every  institution  of  mankind  which  attained  permanence  will 
be  found  linked  with  a  perpetual  want.  With  the  gens  tribe 
and  confederacy  in  existence  the  presence  of  the  phratry  was 
substantially  assured.  It  required  time,  however,  and  further 
experience  to  manifest  all  the  uses  to  which  it  might  be  made 
subservient. 

Among  the  Village  Indians  of  Mexico  and  Central  America 
the  phratry  must  have  existed,  reasoning  upon  general  princi- 
ples; and  have  been  a  more  fully  developed  and  influential  or- 
ganization than  among  the  Iroquois.  Unfortunately,  mere 
glimpses  at  such  an  institution  are  all  that  can  be  found  in  the 
teeming  narratives  of  the  Spanish  writers  within  the  first  cent- 
ury after  the  Spanish  conquest.  The  four  "lineages"  of  the 
Tlascalans  who  occupied  the  four  quarters  of  the  pueblo  of 
Tlascala,  were,  in  all  probability,  so  many  phratries.  They 
were  sufficiently  numerous  for  four  tribes;  but  as  they  occupied 
the  same  pueblo  and  spoke  the  same  dialect  the  phratric  or- 
ganization was  apparently  a  necessity.  Each  lineage,  or  phra- 
try so  to  call  it,  had  a  distinct  military  organization,  a  peculiar 
costume  and  banner,  and  its  head  war- chief  (^7>;/r///^,  \\\\o  was 
its  general  military  commander.  They  went  forth  to  battle  by 
'phratries.  The  organization  of  a  military  force  by  phratries 
and  by  tribes  was  not  unknown  to  the  Homeric  Greeks. 
Thus;  Nestor  advises  Agamemnon  to  "separate  the  troops  by 
phratries  and  by  tribes,  so  that  phratry  may  support  phratry 
and  tribe  tribe."  ^  Under  gentile  institutions  of  the  most  ad- 
vanced type  the  principle  of  kin  became,  to  a  considerable  ex- 
tent, the  basis  of  the  army  organization.  The  Aztecs,  in  like 
manner,  occupied  the  pueblo  of  Mexico  ■  in  four  distinct  divis- 
ions, the  people  of  each  of  which  were  more  nearly  related  to 
each  other  than  to  the  people  of  the  other  divisions.  They 
were  separate  lineages,  like  the  Tlascalan,  and  it  seems  highly 
probable  were  four  phratries,  separately  organized  as  such. 
They  were  distinguished  from  each  other  by  costumes  and 
standards,  and  went  out  to  war  as  separate  divisions.     Their 

'  Iliad,  ii,  362. 


THE  IROOUOTS  PHRATRY. 


99 


geographical  areas  were  called  the  four  quarters  of  Mexico. 
This  subject  will  be  referred  to  again. 

With  respect  to  the  prevalence  of  this  organization,  among 
the  Indian  tribes  in  the  Lower  Status  of  barbarism,  the  subject 
has  been  but  slightly  investigated.  It  is  probable  that  it  was 
general  in  the  principal  tribes,  from  the  natural  manner  in 
which  it  springs  up  as  a  necessary  member  of  the  organic 
series,  and  from  the  uses,  other  than  governmental,  to  which  it 
was  adapted. 

In  some  of  the  tribes  the  phratries  stand  out  prominently 
upon  the  face  of  their  organization.  Thus,  the  Chocta  gentes 
are  united  in  two  phratries  which  must  be  mentioned  first  in 
order  to  show  the  relation  of  the  gentes  to  each  other.  The 
first  phratry  is  called  "Divided  People,"  and  contains  four  gen- 
tes. The  second  is  called  "Beloved  People,"  and  also  contains 
four  gentes.  This  separation  of  the  people  into  two  divisions 
by  gentes  created  two  phratries.  Some  knowledge  of  the 
functions  of  these  phratries  is  of  course  desirable;  but  without 
it,  the  fact  of  their  existence  is  established  by  the  divisions 
themselves.  The  evolution  of  a  confederacy  from  a  pair  of 
gentes,  for  less  than  two  are  never  found  in  any  tribe,  may  be 
deduced,  theoretically,-  from  the  known  facts  of  Indian  experi- 
ence. Thus,  the  gens  increases  in  the  number  of  its  members 
and  divides  into  two;  these  again  subdivide,  and  in  time  reunite 
in  two  or  more  phratries.  These  phratries  form  a  tribe,  and  its 
members  speak  the  same  dialect.  In  course  of  time  this  tribe 
falls  into  several  by  the  process  of  segmentation,  which  in  turn 
reunite  in  a  confederacy.  Such  a  confederacy  is  a  growth, 
through  the  tribe  and  phratry,  from  a  pair  of  gentes. 

The  Chickasas  are  organized  in  two  phratries,  of  which  one 
contains  four,  and  the  other  eight  gentes,  as  follows: 

I.  Panther  Phratry. 

Gentes. — i.  Wild  Cat.      2.   Bird.      3.   Fish.  4.   Deer. 

II.  Spajiish  Phratry. 

Gentes. — 5.  Raccoon.     6.  Spanish.     7.  Royal.     8.  Hush-ko'-ni. 
9.   Squirrel.      10.   Alligator.      11.   Wolf      12.   Blackbird. 
The   particulars  with   respect  to  the   Chocta  and   Chickasa 
phratries  I  am  unable  to  present.     Some  fourteen  years  ago 


lOO  ANCIENT  SOCIETY. 

these  organizations  were  given  to  me  by  Rev.  Doctor  Cyrus 
Byington  and  Rev.  Charles  C.  Copeland,  but  without  discuss- 
ing their  uses  and  functions. 

A  very  complete  illustration  of  the  manner  in  which  phratries 
are  formed  by  natural  growth,  through  the  subdivision  of  gen- 
tes,  is  presented  by  the  organization  of  the  Mohegan  tribe.  It 
had  three  original  gentes,  the  Wolf,  the  Turtle,  and  the  Turkey. 

Each  of  these  subdivided,  and  the  subdivisions  became  inde- 
pendent gentes;  but  they  retained  the  names  of  the  original 
gentes  as  their  respective  phratric  names.  In  other  words  the 
subdivisions  of  each  gens  reorganized  in  a  phratry.  It  proves 
conclusively  the  natural  process  by  which,  in  course  of  time,  a 
gens  breaks  up  into  several,  and  these  remain  united  in  a  phra- 
tric organization,  which  is  expressed  by  assuming  a  phratric 
name.     They  are  as  follows: 

I.    Wolf  Phratry. 

Gentes. — I.  Wolf     2.  Bear.     3.  Dog.     4.  Opossum. 

II.    Turtle  PJiratry. 

Gentes. — 5.   Little  Turtle.     6.   Mud  Turtle.     7.   Great  Turtle. 

8.  Yellow  Eel. 

III.    Turkey  PJiratry. 

Gentes. — 9.  Turkey.      10.   Crane,      ii.  Chicken. 

It  is  thus  seen  that  the  original  Wolf  gens  divided  into  four 
gentes,  the  Turtle  into  four,  and  the  Turkey  into  three.  Each 
new  gens  took  a  new  name,  the  original  retaining  its  own, 
which  became,  by  seniority,  that  of  the  phratry.  It  is  rare 
among  the  American  Indian  tribes  to  find  such  plain  evidence 
of  the  segmentation  of  gentes  in  their  external  organization, 
followed  by  the  formation  into  phratries  of  their  respective  sub- 
divisions. It  shows  also  that  the  phratry  is  founded  upon  the 
kinship  of  the  gentes.  As  a  rule  the  name  of  the  original  gens 
out  of  which  others  had  formed  is  not  known;  but  in  each  of 
these  cases  it  remains  as  the  name  of  the  phratry.  Since  the 
latter,  like  the  Grecian,  was  a  social  and  religious  rather  than  a 
governmental  organization,  it  is  externally  less  conspicuous  than 
a  gens  or  tribe  which  were  essential  to  the  government  of  so- 
ciety. The  name  of  but  one  of  the  twelve  Athenian  phratries 
has  come  down  to  us  in  history.  Those  of  the  Iroquois  had 
no  name  but  that  of  a  brotherhood. 


THE  IROQ UOIS  PHRA TRY.  I O I 

The  Delawares  and  Munsees  have  the  same  three  gentcs,  the 
Wolf,  the  Turtle,  and  the  Turkey.  Among  the  belawares 
there  are  twelve  embryo  gentes  in  each  tribe,  but  they  seem  to 
be  lineages  within  the  gentes  and  had  not  taken  gentile  names. 
It  was  a  movement,  however,  in  that  direction. 

The  phratry  also  appears  among  the  Thlinkeets  of  the  North- 
west coast,  upon  the  surface  of  their  organization  into  gentes. 
They  have  two  phratries,  as  follow^s: 

I.   Wolf  Phratry. 
Gentcs. — I.  Bear.     2.  Eagle.     3.  Dolphin.     4.  Shark.     5.  Alca. 

II.   Raven  Phratry. 
Gentes. — 6.  Frog.   7.  Goose.    8.  Sea-lion.    9.  Owl.     10.  Salmon. 

Intermarriage  in  the  phratry  is  prohibited,  which  shows,  of 
itself,  that  the  gentes  of  each  phratry  were  derived  from  an 
original  gens.^  The  members  of  any  gens  in  the  Wolf  phratry 
could  marry  into  any  gens  of  the  opposite  phratry,  and  vice 
versa. 

From  the  foregoing  facts  the  existence  of  the  phratry  is  es- 
tablished in  several  linguistic  stocks  of  the  American  aborigines. 
Its  presence  in  the  tribes  named  raises  a  presumption  of  its 
general  prevalence  in  the  Ganowanian  family.  Among  the 
Village  Indians,  where  the  numbers  in  a  gens  and  tribe  were 
greater,  it  would  necessarily  have  been  more  important  and  con- 
sequently more  fully  developed.  As  an  institution  it  was  still 
in  its  archaic  form,  but  it  possessed  the  essential  elements  of  the 
Grecian  and  the  Roman.  It  can  now  be  asserted  that  the  full 
organic  series  of  ancient  society  exists  in  full  vitality  upon  the 
American  continent;  namely,  the  gens,  the  phratry,  the  tribe, 
and  the  confederacy  of  tribes.  With  further  proofs  yet  to  be 
adduced,  the  universality  of  the  gentile  organization  upon  all 
the  continents  will  be  established. 

If  future  investigation  is  directed  specially  to  the  functions 
of  the  phratric  organization  among  the  tribes  of  the  American 
aborigines,  the  knowledge  gained  will  explain  many  peculiari- 
ties of  Indian  life  and  manners  not  well  understood,  and  throw 
additional  light  upon  their  usages  and  customs,  and  upon  their 
plan  of  life  and  government. 

'  Bancroft's  Native  Races  of  the  Pacific  States,  I,  109. 


CHAPTER  IV. 

THE   IROQUOIS   TRIBE. 

The  Tribe  as  an  Organization. — Composed  of  Gentes  Speaking  the 
SAME  Dialect. — Separation  in  area  led  to  Divergence  of  Speech,  and 
Segmentation. — The  Tribe  a  Natural  Growth. — Illustrations. — At- 
tributes OF  A  Tribe. — A  Territory  and  Name. — An  Exclusive  Dialect. — 
The  Right  to  Invest  and  Depose  its  Sachems  and  Chiefs. — A  Religious 
Faith  and  Worship. — A  Council  of  Chiefs.— A  Head-Chief  of  Tribe  in 
some  Instances. — Three  successive  Forms  of  Gentile  Government: 
First,  a  Government  of  One  Power;  Second,  of  Two  Powers;  Third, 
of  Three  Powers. 

It  is  difficult  to  describe  an  Indian  tribe  by  the  affirmative 
elements  of  its  composition.  Nevertheless  it  is  clearly  marked, 
and  the  ultimate  organization  of  the  great  body  of  the  Ameri- 
can aborigines.  The  large  number  of  independent  tribes  into 
which  they  had  fallen  by  the  natural  process  of  segmentation, 
is  the  striking  characteristic  of  their  condition.  Each  tribe  was 
individualized  by  a  name,  by  a  separate  dialect,  by  a  supreme 
government,  and  by  the  possession  of  a  territory  which  it  oc- 
cupied and  defended  as  its  own.  The  tribes  were  as  numerous 
as  the  dialects,  for  separation  did  not  become  complete  until 
dialectical  variation  had  commenced.  Indian  tribes,  therefore, 
are  natural  growths  through  the  separation  of  the  same  people 
in  the  area  of  their  occupation,  followed  by  divergence  of 
speech,  segmentation,  and  independence. 

We  have  seen  that  the  phratry  was  not  so  much  a  govern- 
mental as  a  social  organization,  while  the  gens,  tribe,  and 
confederacy,  were  necessary  and  logical  stages  of  progress  in  the 


THE  IROQUOIS  TRIBE. 


103 


growth  of  the  idea  of  government.  A  confederacy  could  not 
exist,  under  gentile  society,  without  tribes  as  a  basis;  nor  could 
tribes  exist  without  gentes,  though  they  might  without 
phratries.  In  this  chapter  I  will  endeavor  to  point  out  the 
manner  in  which  these  numerous  tribes  were  formed,  and, 
presumptively  out  of  one  original  people;  the  causes  which 
produced  their  perpetual  segmentation;  and  the  principal  at- 
tributes which  distinguished  an  Indian  tribe  as  an  organization. 

The  exclusive  possession  of  a  dialect  and  of  a  territory  has 
led  to  the  application  of  the  term  nation  to  many  Indian  tribes, 
notwithstanding  the  fewness  of  the  people  in  each.  Tribe  and 
nation,  however,  are  not  strict  equivalents.  A  nation  does  not 
arise,  under  gentile  institutions,  until  the  tribes  united  under  the 
same  government  have  coalesced  into  one  people,  as  the  four 
Athenian  tribes  coalesced  in  Attica,  three  Dorian  tribes  at 
Sparta,  and  three  Latin  and  Sabine  tribes  at  Rome.  Federation 
requires  independent  tribes  in  separate  territorial  areas;  but 
coalescence  unites  them  by  a  higher  process  in  the  same  area, 
although  the  tendency  to  local  separation  by  gentes  and  by 
tribes  would  continue.  The  confederacy  is  the  nearest  analogue 
of  the  nation,  but  not  strictly  equivalent.  Where  the  gentile 
organization  exists,  the  organic  series  gives  all  the  terms  which 
are  needed  for  a  correct  description. 

An  Indian  tribe  is  composed  of  several  gentes,  developed 
from  two  or  more,  all  the  members  of  which  are  intermingled 
by  marriage,  and  all  of  Avhom  speak  the  same  dialect.  To  a 
stranger  the  tribe  is  visible,  and  not  the  gens.  The  instances 
are  extremely  rare,  among  the  American  aborigines,  in 
which  the  tribe  embraced  peoples  speaking  different  dialects. 
When  such  cases  are  found,  it  resulted  from  the  union  of  a 
weaker  wath  a  stronger  tribe  speaking  a  closely  related  dialect, 
as  the  union  of  the  Missouris  with  the  Otoes  after  the  overthrow 
of  the  former.  The  fact  that  the  great  body  of  the  aborigines 
were  found  in  independent  tribes  illustrates  the  slow  and  diffi- 
cult growth  of  the  idea  of  government  under  gentile  institutions. 
A  small  portion  only  had  attained  to  the  ultimate  stage  known 
among  them,  that  of  a  confederacy  of  tribes  speaking  dialects 
of  the  same  stock  language.  A  coalescence  of  tribes  into  a 
nation  had  not  occurred  in  any  case  in  any  part  of  America. 


104 


ANCIENT  SOCIETY. 


A  constant  tendency  to  disintegration,  which  has  proved 
such  a  hinderance  to  progress  among  savage  and  barbarous 
tribes,  existed  in  the  elements  of  the  gentile  organization.  It 
was  aggravated  by  a  further  tendency  to  divergence  of  speech, 
which  was  inseparable  from  their  social  state  and  the  large 
areas  of  their  occupation.  A  verbal  language,  although 
remarkably  persistent  in  its  vocables,  and  still  more  persistent  in 
its  grammatical  forms,  is  incapable  of  permanence.  Separation 
of  the  people  in  area  was  followed  in  time  by  variation  in 
speech;  and  this,  in  turn,  led  to  separation  in  interests  and 
ultimate  independence.  It  was  not  the  work  of  a  brief  period, 
but  of  centuries  of  time,  aggregating  finally  into  thousands  of 
years.  The  great  number  of  dialects  and  stock  languages  in 
North  and  South  America,  which  presumptively  were  derived, 
the  Eskimo  excepted,  from  one  original  language,  require  for 
their  formation  the  time  measured  by  three  ethnical  periods. 

New  tribes  as  well  as  new  gentes  were  constantly  forming  by 
natural  growth;  and  the  process  was  sensibly  accelerated  by 
the  great  expanse  of  the  American  continent.  The  method 
was  simple.  In  the  first  place  there  would  occur  a  gradual 
outflow  of  people  from  some  overstocked  geographical  centre, 
which  possessed  superior  advantages  in  the  means  of  subsist- 
ence. Continued  from  year  to  year,  a  considerable  population 
would  thus  be  developed  at  a  distance  from  the  original  seat  of 
the  tribe.  In  course  of  time  the  emigrants  would  become 
distinct  in  interests,  strangers  in  feeling,  and  last  of  all,  diver- 
gent in  speech.  Separation  and  independence  would  follow, 
although  their  territories  were  contiguous.  A  nevv'  tribe  was 
thus  created.  This  is  a  concise  statement  of  the  manner  in 
which  the  tribes  of  the  American  aborigines  were  formed,  but 
the  statement  must  be  taken  as  general.  Repeating  itself  from 
age  to  age  in  newly  acquired  as  well  as  in  old  areas,  it  must  be 
regarded  as  a  natural  as  well  as  inevitable  result  of  the  gentile 
organization,  united  with  the  necessities  of  their  condition. 
When  increased  numbers  pressed  upon  the  means  of  subsist- 
ence, the  surplus  removed  to  a  new  seat  where  they  established 
themselves  with  facility,  because  the  government  was  perfect  in 
every  gens,   and   in  any  number  of  gentes  united  in  a  band. 


THE  IROQUOIS  TRIBE.  105 

Among  the  Village  Indians  the  same  thing  repeated  itself  in  a 
slightly  different  manner.  When  a  village  became  overcrowd- 
ed with  numbers,  a  colony  went  up  or  down  on  the  same  stream 
and  commenced  a  new  village.  Repeated  at  intervals  of  time 
several  such  villages  would  appear,  each  independent  of  the 
other  and  a  self-governing  body;  but  united  in  a  league  or 
confederacy  for  mutual  protection.  Dialectical  variation  would 
finally  spring  up,  and  thus  complete  their  growth  into  tribes. 

The  manner  in  which  tribes  are  evolved  from  each  other  can 
be  shown  directly  by  examples.  The  fact  of  separation  is  de- 
rived in  part  from  tradition,  in  part  from  the  possession  by  each 
of  a  number  of  the  same  gentes,  and  deduced  in  part  from  the 
relations  of  their  dialects.  Tribes  formed  by  the  subdivisions 
of  an  original  tribe  would  possess  a  number  of  gentes  in  com- 
mon, and  speak  dialects  of  the  same  language.  After  several 
centuries  of  separation  they  would  still  have  a  number  of  the 
same  gentes.  Thus,  the  Hurons,  now  Wyandotes,  have  six 
gentes  of  the  same  name  with  six  of  the  gentes  of  the  Seneca- 
Iroquois,  after  at  least  four  hundred  years  of  separation.  The 
Potawattamies  have  eight  gentes  of  the  same  name  with  eight 
among  the  Ojibwas,  while  the  former  have  six,  and  the  latter 
fourteen,  which  are  different ;  showing  that  new  gentes  have 
been  formed  in  each  tribe  by  segmentation  since  their  separa- 
tion. A  still  older  offshoot  from  the  Ojibwas,  or  from  the  com- 
mon parent  tribe  of  both,  the  Miamis,  have  but  three  gentes  in 
common  with  the  former,  namely,  the  Wolf,  the  Loon,  and  the 
Eagle.  The  minute  social  history  of  the  tribes  of  the  Ganowa- 
nian  family  is  locked  up  in  the  life  and  growth  of  the  gentes. 
If  investigation  is  ever  turned  strongly  in  this  direction,  the 
gentes  themselves  would  become  reliable  guides,  both  in  respect 
to  the  order  of  separation  from  each  other  of  the  tribes  of  the 
same  stock,  and  possibly  of  the  great  stocks  of  the  aborigines. 

The  following  illustrations  are  drawn  from  tribes  in  the 
Lower  Status  of  barbarism.  When  discovered,  the  eight  Missouri 
tribes  occupied  the  banks  of  the  Missouri  river  for  more  than  a 
thousand  miles;  together  with  the  banks  of  its  tributaries,  the 
Kansas  and  the  Platte;  and  also  the  smaller  rivers  of  Iowa. 
They  also  occupied  the  west  bank  of  the  Mississippi  down  to  the 


I06  ANCIENT  SOCIETY. 

Arkansas.  Their  dialects  show  that  the  people  were  in  three 
tribes  before  the  last  subdivisions;  namely,  first,  the  Punkas  and 
Omahas,  second,  the  lowas,  Otoes  and  Missouris,  and  third, 
the  Kaws,  Osages  and  Quappas.  These  three  were  undoubtedly 
subdivisions  of  a  single  original  tribe,  because  their  several 
dialects  are  still  much  nearer  to  each  other  than  to  any  other 
dialect  of  the  Dakotian  stock  language  to  which  they  belong. 
There  is,  therefore,  a  linguistic  necessity  for  their  derivation  from 
an  original  tribe.  A  gradual  spread  from  a  central  point  on 
this  river  along  its  banks,  both  above  and  below,  would  lead  to 
a  separation  in  interests  with  the  increase  of  distance  between 
their  settlements,  followed  by  divergence  of  speech,  and  finally 
by  independence.  A  people  thus  extending  themselves  along  a 
river  in  a  prairie  country  might  separate,  first  into  three  tribes, 
and  afterwards  into  eight,  and  the  organization  of  each  subdi- 
vision remain  complete.  Division  was  neither  a  shock,  nor  an 
appreciated  calamity;  but  a  separation  into  parts  by  natural  ex- 
pansion over  a  larger  area,  followed  by  a  complete  segmenta- 
tion. The  uppermost  tribe  on  the  Missouri  were  the  Punkas 
at  the  mouth  of  the  Niobrara  river,  and  the  lowermost  the 
Quappas  at  the  mouth  of  the  Arkansas  on  the  Mississippi,  with 
an  interval  of  near  fifteen  hundred  miles  between  them.  The 
intermediate  region,  confined  to  the  narrow  belt  of  forest  upon 
the  Missouri,  was  held  by  the  remaining  six  tribes.  They  were 
strictly  River  Tribes. 

Another  illustration  may  be  found  in  the  tribes  of  Lake  Su- 
perior. The  Ojibwas,  Otawas^  and  Potawattamies  are  subdi- 
visions of  an  original  tribe;  the  Ojibwas  representing  the  stem, 
because  they  remained  at  the  original  seat  at  the  great  fisheries 
upon  the  outlet  of  the  lake.  Moreover,  they  are  styled  "El- 
der Brother"  by  the  remaining  two;  while  the  Otawas  were 
styled  "Next  Older  Brother,"  and  the  Potawattamies  "Younger 
Brother."  The  last  tribe  separated  first,  and  the  Otawas  last, 
as  is  shown  by  the  relative  amount  of  dialectical  variation,  that 
of  the  former  being  greatest.  At  the  time  of  their  discovery, 
A.  D.  1 64 1,  the  Ojibwas  were  seated  at  the  Rapids  on  the  out- 
let of  Lake  Superior,  from  which  point  they  had  spread  along 

1  O-ta'-was. 


THE  IROQUOIS  TRIBE. 


107 


the  southern  shore  of  the  lake  to  the  site  of  Ontonagon,  along 
its  northeastern  shore,  and  down  the  St.  Mary  River  well  to- 
ward Lake  Huron.  Their  position  possessed  remarkable  ad- 
vantages for  a  fish  and  game  subsistence,  which,  as  they  did  not 
cultivate  maize  and  plants,  was  their  main  reliance.^  It  was 
second  to  none  in  North  America,  with  the  single  exception  of 
the  Valley  of  the  Columbia.  With  such  advantages  they  were 
certain  to  develop  a  large  Indian  population,  and  to  send  out 
successive  bands  of  emigrants  to  become  independent  tribes. 
The  Potawattamies  occupied  a  region  on  the  confines  of  Upper 
Michigan  and  Wisconsin,  from  which  the  Dakotas  in  1641, 
were  in  the  act  of  expelling  them.  At  the  same  time  the 
Otawas,  whose  earlier  residence  is  supposed  to  have  been  on 
the  Otawa  river  of  Canada,  had  drawn  westward  and  were 
then  seated  upon  the  Georgian  Bay,  the  Manitouline  Islands 
and  at  Mackinaw,  from  which  points  they  were  spreading 
southward  over  Lower  Michigan.  Originally  one  people,  and 
possessing  the  same  gentes,  they  had  succeeded  in  appropriat- 
ing a  large  area.  Separation  in  place,  and  distance  between 
their  settlements,  had  long  before  their  discovery  resulted  in 
the  formation  of  dialects,  and  in  tribal  independence.  The 
three  tribes,  whose  territories  were  contiguous,  had  formed  an 
alliance  for  mutual  protection,  known  among  Americans  as 
"the  Otawa  Confederacy."  It  was  a  league,  offensive  and  de- 
fensive, and  not,  probably,  a  close  confederacy  like  that  of  the 
Iroquois. 

Prior  to  these  secessions  another  affiliated  tribe,  the  Miamis, 
had  broken  off  from  the  Ojibwa  stock,  or  the  common  parent 
tribe,  and  migrated  to  central  Illinois  and  western  Indiana. 
Following  in  the  track  of  this  migration  were  the  Illinois,  an- 
other and  later  offshoot  from  the  same  stem,  who  afterwards 
subdivided  into  the  Peorias,  Kaskaskias,  Weaws,  and  Pian- 
keshaws.  Their  dialects,  with  that  of  the  Miamis,  find  their 
nearest  affinity  with  the  Ojibwa,  and  next  with  the  Cree.^     The 

*  The  Ojibwas  manufactured  earthen  pipes,  water  jars,  and  vessels  in  ancient 
times,  as  they  now  assert.  Indian  pottery  has  been  dug  up  at  different  times  at 
the  Sault  St.  Mary,  which  they  recognize  as  the  work  of  their  forefathers. 

*  The  Potawattamie  and  the  Cree  have  diverged  about  equally.  It  is  probable 
that  the  Ojibwas  Otawas  and  Crees  were  one  people  in  dialect  after  the  Pot- 
awattamies became  detached. 


I08  ANCIENT  SOCIETY. 

outflow  of  all  these  tribes  from  the  central  seat  at  the  great 
fisheries  of  Lake  Superior  is  a  significant  fact,  because  it  illus- 
trates the  manner  in  which  tribes  are  formed  in  connection 
with  natural  centres  of  subsistence.  The  New  England,  Del- 
aware, Maryland,  Virginia  and  Carolina  Algonkins  were,  in  all 
probability,  derived  from  the  same  source.  Several  centuries 
would  be  required  for  the  formation  of  the  dialects  first  named, 
and  for  the  production  of  the  amount  of  variation  they  now 
exhibit. 

,      The   foregoing  examples   represent  the  natural   process   by 
!  which  tribes  are  evolved  from  each  other,  or  from  a  parent  tribe 
established  in  an  advantageous  position.     Each  emigrating  band 
was  in  the  nature  of  a  military  colony,  if  it  may  be  so  strongly 
characterized,  seeking  to  acquire  and  hold  a  new  area;    pre- 
serving at  first,  and  as  long  as  possible,  a  connection  with  the 
mother  tribe.      By  these  successive  movements  they  sought  to 
expand  their  joint  possessions,  and  afterward  to  resist  the  in- 
trusion of  alien  people  within  their  limits.      It  is  a  noticeable 
fact  that  Indian  tribes  speaking  dialects  of  the  same  stock  lan- 
guage have  usually  been  found  in  territorial  continuity,  how- 
ever extended  their  common  area.     The  same  has,  in  the  main, 
,  been  true  of  all  the  tribes  of  mankind  linguistically  united.      It 
j  is  because  the  people,  spreading  from  some  geographical  centre, 
jand   maintaining  an  arduous  struggle  for  subsistence,  and  for 
'the  possession  of  their  new  territories,  have  preserved  their  con- 
inection  with  the  mother  land  as  a  means  of  succor  in  times  of 
danger,  and  as  a  place  of  refuge  in  calamity. 

It  required  special  advantages  in  the  means  of  subsistence  to 
render  any  area  an  initial  point  of  migration  through  the 
gradual  development  of  a  surplus  population.  These  natural 
centres  were  few  in  number  in  North  America.  There  are  but 
three.  First  among  them  is  the  Valley  of  the  Columbia,  the  most 
extraordinary  region  on  the  face  of  the  earth  in  the  variety  and 
amount  of  subsistence  it  afforded,  prior  to  the  cultiv^ation  of 
maize  and  plants;^  second,  the  peninsula  between  Lakes  Supe- 

•  As  a  mixture  of  forest  and  prairie  it  was  an  excellent  game  country.  A  species 
of  bread-root,  the  kamash,  grew  in  abundance  in  the  prairies.  In  the  summer 
there  was  a  profusion  of  berries.     But  in  these  respects  it  was  not  superior  to 


THE  IROQUOIS  TRIBE.  109 

rior,  Huron  and  Michigan,  the  seat  of  the  Ojibwas,  and  the 
nursery  land  of  many  Indian  tribes;  and  third,  the  lake  region 
in  ]\Iinnesota,  the  nursery  ground  of  the  present  Dakota 
tribes.  These  are  the  only  regions  in  North  America  that  can 
be  called  natural  centres  of  subsistence,  and  natural  sources  of 
surplus  numbers.  There  are  reasons  for  believing  that  Min- 
nesota was  a^part  of  the  Algonkin  area  before  it  was  occupied 
by  the  Dakotas.  When  the  cultivation  of  maize  and  plants 
came  in,  it  tended  to  localize  the  people  and  support  them  in 
smaller  areas,  as  well  as  to  increase  their  numbers ;  but  it  failed 
to  transfer  the  control  of  the  continent  to  the  most  advanced 
tribes  of  Village  Indians,  who  subsisted  almost  entirely  by  cul- 
tivation. Horticulture  spread  among  the  principal  tribes  in  the 
Lower  Status  of  barbarism  and  greatly  improved  their  condi- 
tion. They  held,  with  the  non-horticultural  tribes,  the  great 
areas  of  North  America  when  it  was  discovered,  and  from  their 
ranks  the  continent 'was  being  replenished  with  inhabitants.^ 

other  areas.  That  which  signalized  the  region  was  the  inexhaustible  supply 
of  salmon  in  the  Columbia,  and  other  rivers  of  the  coast.  They  crowded  these 
streams  in  millions,  and  were  taken  in  the  season  with  facility,  and  in  the  greatest 
abundance.  After  being  split  open  and  dried  in  the  sun,  they  were  packed  and 
removed  to  their  villages,  and  formed  their  principal  food  during  the  greater 
part  of  the  year.  Beside  these  were  the  shell  fisheries  of  the  coast,  which  supplied 
a  large  amount  of  food  during  the  winter  months.  Superadded  to  these  concen- 
trated advantages,  the  climate  was  mild  and  equable  throughout  the  year — about 
that  of  Tennessee  and  Virginia.  It  was  the  paradise  of  tribes  without  a  knowl- 
edge of  the  cereals. 

'  It  can  be  shown  with  a  great  degree  of  probability,  that  the  Valley  of  the 
Columbia  was  the  seed  land  of  the  Ganowanian  family,  from  which  issued,  in 
past  ages,  successive  streams  of  migrating  bands,  until  both  divisions  of  the 
continent  were  occupied.  And  further,  that  both  divisions  continued  to_  be  re- 
plenished with  inhabitants  from  this  source  down  to  the  epoch  of  European 
discovery.  These  conclusions  may  be  deduced  from  physical  causes,  from  the 
relative  conditions,  and  from  the  linguistic  relations  of  the  Indian  tribes.  The 
great  expanse  of  the  central  prairies,  which  spread  continuously  more  than  fifteen 
hundred  miles  from  north  to  south,  and  more  than  a  thousand  miles  from  east  to 
west,  interposed  a  barrier  to  a  free  communication  between  the  Pacific  and  Atlantic 
sides  of  the  continent  in  North  America.  It  seems  probable,  therefore,  that  an 
original  family  commencing  its  spread  from  the  Valley  of  the  Columbia,  and 
migrating  under  the  influence  of  physical  causes,  would  reach  Patagonia  sooner 
than  they  would  Florida.  The  known  facts  point  so  strongly  to  this  region  as  the 
original  home  of  the  Indian  family,  that  a  moderate  amount  of  additional  evidence 
will  render  the  hypothesis  conclusive. 

The  discovery  and  cultivation  of  maize  did  not  change  materially  the  course 


no  ANCIENT  SOCIETY. 

The  multiplication  of  tribes  and  dialects  has  been  the  fruitful 
source  of  the  incessant  warfare  of  the  aborigines  upon  each 
other.  As  a  rule  the  most  persistent  warfare  has  been  waged 
;between  tribes  speaking  different  stock  languages ;  as,  for  ex- 
Jample,  between  the  Iroquois  and  Algonkin  tribes,  and  between 
the  Dakota  tribes  and  the  same.  On  the  contrary  the  Algon- 
kin and  Dakota  tribes  severally  have,  in  general,  hved  at  peace 
among  themselves.  Had  it  been  otherwise  they  would  ftot 
have  been  found  in  the  occupation  of  continuous  areas.  The 
worst  exception  were  the  Iroquois,  who  pursued  a  war  of  exter- 
mination against  their  kindred  tribes,  the  Eries,  the  Neutral 
Nation,  the  Hurons  and  the  Susquehannocks.  Tribes  speaking 
•  dialects  of  the  same  stock  language  are  able  to  communicate 
orally  and  thus  compose  their  differences.     They  also  learned, 

of  events,  or  suspend  the  operatiofi  of  previous  causes ;  though  it  became  an 
important  factor  in  the  progress  of  improvement.  It  is  not  known  where  this 
American  cereal  was  indigenous ;  but  the  tropical  region  of  Central  America, 
where  vegetation  is  intensely  active,  where  this  plant  is  peculiarly  fruitful,  and 
where  the  oldest  seats  of  the  Village  Indians  were  found,  has  been  assumed 
by  common  consent,  as  the  probable  place  of  its  nativity.  If,  then,  cultivation 
commenced  in  Central  America,  it  would  have  propagated  itself  first  over  Mexico, 
and  from  thence  to  New  Mexico  and  the  valley  of  the  Mississippi,  and  thence 
ao-ain  eastward  to  the  shores  of  the  Atlantic ;  the  volume  of  cultivation  diminish- 
ing from  the  starting-point  to  the  extremities.  It  would  spread,  independently 
of  the  Village  Indians,  from  the  desire  of  more  barbarous  tribes  to  gain  tlie  new 
subsistence ;  but  it  never  extended  beyond  New  Mexico  to  the  Valley  of  the 
Columbia,  though  cultivation  was  practiced  by  the  Minnitarees  and  Mandans  of  the 
Upper  Missouri,  by  the  Shyans  on  the  Red  River  of  the  North,  by  the  Hurons 
of  Lake  Simcoe  in  Canada,  and  by  the  Abenakies  of  the  Kennebec,  as  well  as 
generally  by  the  tribes  between  the  Mississippi  and  the  Atlantic.  Migrating  bands 
from  the  Valley  of  the  Columbia,  following  upon  the  track  of  their  predecessors, 
would  press  upon  the  Village  Indians  of  New  Mexico  and  Mexico,  tending  to  force 
displaced  and  fragmentary  tribes  toward  and  through  the  Isthmus  into  South 
America.  Such  expelled  bands  would  carry  with  them  the  first  germs  of  progress 
developed  by  Village  Indian  life.  Repeated  at  intervals  of  time  it  would  tend  to 
bestow  upon  South  America  a  class  of  inhabitants  far  superior  to  the  wild  bands 
previously  supplied,  and  at  the  expense  of  the  northern  section  thus  impoverished. 
In  the  final  result.  South  America  would  attain  the  advanced  position  in  develop- 
ment, even  in  an  inferior  country,  which  seems  to  have  been  the  fact.  The  Peru- 
vian legend  of  Manco  Capac  and  Mama  Oello,  children  of  the  sun,  brother  and 
sister,  husband  and  wife,  shows,  if  it  can  be  said  to  show  anything,  that  a  band 
of  Village  Indians  migrating  from  a  distance,  though  not  necessarily  from  North 
America  direct,  had  gathered  together  and  taught  the  rude  tribes  of  the  Andes  the 
higher  arts  of  life,  including  the  cultivation  of  maize  and  plants.  By  a  simple  and 
quite  natural  process  the  legend  has  dropped  out  the  band,  and  retained  only  the 
leader  and  his  wife. 


THE  IROQUOIS  TRIBE.  Ill 

(in  virtue  of  their  common  descent,  to  depend  upon  each  other 

las  natural  allies. 

Numbers  within  a  given  area  were  limited  by  the  amount  of 
subsistence  it  afforded.  When  fish  and  game  were  the  main 
reliance  for  food,  it  required  an  immense  area  to  maintain  a 
small  tribe.  After  farinaceous  food  was  superadded  to  fish  and 
game,  the  area  occupied  by  a  tribe  was  still  a  large  one  in  pro- 
portion to  the  number  of  the  people.  New  York,  with  its 
forty-seven  thousand  square  miles,  never  contained  at  any  time 
more  than  twenty-five  thousand  Indians,  including  with  the 
Iroquois  the  Algonkins  on  the  east  side  of  the  Hudson  and 
upon  Long  Island,  and  the  Eries  and  Neutral  Nation  in  the 
western  section  of  the  state.  A  personal  government  founded 
upon  gentes  was  incapable  of  developing  sufficient  central 
power  to  follow  and  control  the  increasing  numbers  of  the 
people,  unless  they  remained  within  a  reasonable  distance  from 
each  other. 

Among  the  Village  Indians  of  New  Mexico,  Mexico,  and 
Central  America  an  increase  of  numbers  in  a  small  area  did  not 
arrest  the  process  of  disintegration.  Each  pueblo  was  usually 
an  independent  self-governing  community.  Where  several 
pueblos  were  seated  near  each  other  on  the  same  stream,  the 
people  were  usually  of  common  descent,  and  either  under  a 
tribal  or  confederate  government.  There  are  some  seven 
stock  languages  in  New  Mexico  alone,  each  spoken  in  several 
dialects.  At  the  time  of  Coronado's  expedition,  1 540- 1 542,  the 
villages  found  were  numerous  but  small.  There  were  seven 
each  of  Cibola,  Tucayan,  Quivira,  and  Hemez,  and  twelve  of 
Tiguex;^  and  other  groups  indicating  a  linguistic  connection  of 
their  members.  Whether  or  not  each  group  was  confederated 
we  are  not  informed.  The  seven  Moqui  Pueblos  (the  Tucayan 
Villages  of  Coronado's  expedition),  are  said  to  be  confederated 
at  the  present  time,  and  probably  were  at  the  time  of  their 
discovery. 

The  process  of  subdivision,  illustrated  by  the  foregoing 
examples,  has  been  operating  among  the  American  aborigines 
for  thousands  of  years,  until  upwards  of  forty  stock  languages, 

'  Coll.  TernauX'Compans,  IX,  pp.  181-183. 


112  ANCIENT  SOCIETY. 

as  near  as  is  known,  have  been  developed  in  North  America 
alone;  each  spoken  in  a  number  of  dialects,  by  an  equal 
number  of  independent  tribes.  Their  experience,  probably, 
was  but  a  repetition  of  that  of  the  tribes  of  Asia,  Europe  and 
Africa,  when  they  were  in  corresponding  conditions. 

From  the  preceding  observations,  it  is  apparent  that  an 
American  Indian  tribe  is  a  very  simple  as  well  as  humble 
organization.  It  required  but  a  few  hundreds,  and,  at  most,  a 
few  thousand  people  to  form  a  tribe,  and  place  it  in  a  respect- 
able position  in  the  Ganowanian  family. 

It  remains  to  present  the  functions  and  attributes  of  an 
Indian  tribe,  which  may  be  discussed  under  the  following  prop- 
ositions: 

I.    The  possession  of  a  territory  and  a  name. 

II.    TJie  exclusive  possession  of  a  dialect. 

III.  The    right  to    invest   sacJicms   and  chiefs  elected  by  the 

gentes. 

IV.  The  right  to  depose  these  sachems  and  chiefs. 

V.    The  possession  of  a  religious  faith  and  luorship. 
VI.   A  supreme  governmcjit  consisting  of  a  council  of  chiefs. 
VII.  A  head-chief  of  the  tribe  in  some  instances. 

It  will  be  sufficient  to  make  a  brief  reference  to  each  of  these 
several  attributes  of  a  tribe. 

I.    The  possession  of  a  territory  and  a  name. 

Their  territory  consisted  of  the  area  of  their  actual  settle- 
ments, and  so  much  of  the  surrounding  region  as  the  tribe 
ranged  over  in  hunting  and  fishing,  and  were  able  to  defend 
against  the  encroachments  of  other  tribes.  Without  this  area 
was  a  wide  margin  of  neutral  grounds,  separating  them  from 
their  nearest  frontegers  if  they  spoke  a  different  language,  and 
claimed  by  neither;  but  less  wide,  and  less  clearly  marked, 
when  they  spoke  dialects  of  the  same  language.  The  country 
thus  imperfectly  defined,  whether  large  or  small,  was  the 
domain  of  the  tribe,  recognized  as  such  by  other  tribes,  and 
defended  as  such  by  themselves. 

In  due  time  the  tribe  became  individualized  by  a  name, 
which,  from  their  usual  character,  must  have  been  in  many 
cases    accidental   rather  than    deliberate.     Thus,  the    Senecas 


THE  IROQ  UOIS  TRIBE.  1 1 3 

styled  themselves  the  "Great  Hill  People"  (Nun-da'- wa-o-no), 
the    Tuscaroras,     "Shirt- wearing  People"   (Dus-ga'-o-weh-o- 
no'),  the  Sissetons,  "Village  of  the  Marsh"  (Sis-se'-to-wan),  the 
Ogalallas,  "Camp  Movers"  (O-ga-lal'-lJi),  the  Omahas,  "Up- 
stream People"  (O-ma'-ha),  the  lowas,  "Dusty  Noses"  (Pa-ho'- 
cha),    the   Minnitarees,    "People  from    Afar"    (E-nat'-za),  the 
Cherokees,    "Great    People"     (Tsa-lo'-kee),     the     Shawnees, 
"Southerners"     (Sa-wan-wa-kee'),    the    Mohegans,    "Sea-side 
People"  (Mo-he-kun-e-uk),  the  Slave   Lake  Indians,   "People 
of  the    Lowlands"    (A-cha'-o-tin-ne).       Among    the    Village 
Indians  of  Mexico,  the  Sochimilcos  styled  themselves  "Nation 
of  the  Seeds  of  Flowers,"  the  Chalcans,   "People  of  Mouths," 
the    Tepanecans,   "People  of  the  Bridge,"  the  Tezcucans  or 
Culhuas    "A  Crooked    People,"  and  the  Tlascalans  "Men  of 
Bread.  "^     When  European  colonization  began  in  the  northern 
part  of  America,  the  names  of  Indian  tribes  were  obtained,  not 
usually  from  the  tribe  direct,  but  from  other  tribes  who  had 
bestowed  names  upon  them  different  from  their  own.      As  a 
consequence,  a    number  of  tribes  are  now  known  in  history 
under  names  not  recognized  by  themselves. 
I      II.    The  exclusive  posscssioii  of  a  dialect. 

!  Tribe  and  dialect  are  substantially  co- extensive,  but  there 
are  exceptions  growing  out  of  special  circumstances.  Thus, 
the  twelve  Dakota  bands  are  now  properly  tribes,  because  they 
are  distinct  in  interests  and  in  organization;  but  they  were 
forced  into  premature  separation  by  the  advance  of  Americans 
upon  their  original  area  which  forced  them  upon  the  plains. 
They  had  remained  in  such  intimate  connection  previously  that 
but  one  new  dialect  had  commenced  forming,  the  Tceton,  on  the 
Missouri;  the  hanntie  on  the  Mississippi  being  the  original 
speech.  A  few  years  ago  the  Cherokees  numbered  twenty-six 
thousand,  the  largest  number  of  Indians  ever  found  within  the 
limits  of  the  United  States  speaking  the  same  dialect.  But  in 
the  mountain  districts  of  Georgia  a  slight  divergence  of  speech 
had  occurred,  though  not  sufficient  to  be  distinguished  as  a 
dialect.     There  are  a  few  other  similar  cases,  but  they  do  not 

'   Acosta.      The  Natural  and  J\foral  History  of  the  East  and  West  Indies, 
Lond.  ed.,  1604,  Grimstone's  Trans.,  pp.  500-503. 


114 


ANCIENT  SOCIETY. 


break  the  general  rule  during  the  aboriginal  period  which  made 
tribe  and  dialect  co-extensive.  The  Ojibwas,  who  are  still  in 
the  main  non-horticultural,  now  number  about  fifteen  thou- 
sand, and  speak  the  same  dialect;  and  the  Dakota  tribes  col- 
lectively about  twenty-five  thousand  who  speak  two  very 
closely  related  dialects,  as  stated.  These  several  tribes  are  ex- 
ceptionally large.  The  tribes  within  the  United  States  and 
British  America  would  yield,  on  an  average,  less  than  two  thou- 
sand persons  to  a  tribe. 

III.  TJie  right  of  investing  sachems  and  chiefs  elected  by 
the  gentes. 

Among  the  Iroquois  the  person  elected  could  not  become  a 
chief  until  his  investiture  by  a  council  of  chiefs.  As  the  chiefs 
of  the  gentes  composed  the  council  of  the  tribe,  with  power 
over  common  interests,  there  was  a  manifest  propriety  in  re- 
serving to  the  tribal  council  the  function  of  investing  persons 
with  office.  But  after  the  confederacy  was  formed,  the  power 
of  "raising  up"  sachems  and  chiefs  was  transferred  from  the 
council  of  the  tribe  to  the  council  of  the  confederacy.  With 
respect  to  the  tribes  generally,  the  accessible  information  is  in- 
sufficient to  explain  their  usages  in  relation  to  the  mode  of  in- 
vestiture. It  is  one  of  the  numerous  subjects  requiring  further 
investigation  before  the  social  system  of  the  Indian  tribes  can 
be  fully  explained.  The  office  of  sachem  and  chief  was  uni- 
versally elective  among  the  tribes  north  of  Mexico;  with  suffi- 
cient evidence,  as  to  other  parts  of  the  continent,  to  leave  no 
doubt  of  the  universality  of  the  rule. 

Among  the  Delawares  each  gens  had  one  sachem,  (Sa-ke'- 
ma),  whose  office  was  hereditary  in  the  gens,  besides  two  com- 
mon chiefs,  and  two  war-chiefs — making  fifteen  in  three  gentes — 
who  composed  the  council  of  the  tribe.  Among  the  Ojibwas, 
the  members  of  some  one  gens  usually  predominated  at  each 
settlement.  Each  gens  had  a  sachem,  whose  office  was  heredi- 
tary in  the  gens,  and  several  common  chiefs.  Where  a  large 
number  of  persons  of  the  same  gens  lived  in  one  locality  they 
would  be  found  similarly  organized.  There  was  no  prescribed 
limit  to  the  number  of  chiefs.  A  body  of  usages,  which  have 
never  been  collected,  undoubtedly  existed  in  the  several  Indian 


THE  IROQUOIS  TRIBE. 


115 


tribes  respecting  the  election  and  investiture  of  sachems  and 
chiefs.  A  knowledge  of  them  would  be  valuable.  An  expla- 
nation of  the  Iroquois  method  of  "raising  up"  sachems  and 
chiefs  will  be  given  in  the  next  chapter. 

IV.  The  right  to  depose  these  sachems  and  chiefs. 

This  right  rested  primarily  with  the  gens  to  which  the  sa- 
chem and  chief  belonged.  But  the  council  of  the  tribe  possessed 
the  same  power,  and  could  proceed  independently  of  the  gens, 
and  even  in  opposition  to  its  wishes.  In  the  Status  of  savage- 
ry, and  in  the  Lower  and  also  in  the  Middle  Status  of  barba- 
rism, office  was  bestowed  for  life,  or  during  good  behavior. 
Mankind  had  not  learned  to  limit  an  elective  office  for  a  term 
of  years.  The  right  to  depose,  therefore,  became  the  more 
essential  for  the  maintenance  of  the  principle  of  self-govern- 
ment. This  right  was  a  perpetual  assertion  of  the  sovereignty 
of  the  gens  and  also  of  the  tribe;  a  sovereignty  feebly  under- 
stood, but  nevertheless  a  reality. 

V.  The  possession  of  a  irligions  faith  and  worship. 

After  the  fashion  of  barbarians  the  American  Indians  were  a 
religious  people.  The  tribes  generally  held  religious  festivals 
at  particular  seasons  of  the  year,  which  were  observed  with 
forms  of  worship,  dances  and  games.  The  Medicine  Lodge,  in 
many  tribes,  was  the  centre  of  these  observances.  It  was  cus- 
tomary to  announce  the  holding  of  a  Medicine  Lodge  weeks 
and  months  in  advance  to  awaken  a  general  interest  in  its  cer- 
emonies. The  religious  system  of  the  aborigines  is  another 
of  the  subjects  which  has  been  but  partially  investigated.  It  is 
rich  in  materials  for  the  future  student.  The  experience  of 
these  tribes  in  deyeloping  their  religious  beliefs  and  mode  of 
worship  is  a  part  of  the  experience  of  mankind ;  and  the  facts 
will  hold  an  important  place  in  the  science  of  comparative  re- 
ligion. 

Their  system  was  more  or  less  vague  and  indefinite,  and  load- 
ed with  crude  superstitions.  Element  worship  can  be  traced 
among  the  principal  tribes,  with  a  tendency  to  polytheism  in 
the  advanced  tribes.  The  Iroquois,  for  example,  recognized 
a  Great,  and  an  Evil  Spirit,  and  a  multitude  of  inferior  spir- 
itual beings,  the  immortality  of  the  soul,  and  a  future  state. 


1 1 5  ANCIENT  SOCIE  T  V. 

Their  conception  of  the  Great  Spirit  assigned  to  him  a  human 
form;  which  was  equally  true  of  the  Evil  Spirit,  of  He' -no,  the 
Spirit  of  Thunder,  of  Ga'-o/i,  the  Spirit  of  the  Winds,  and  of  the 
Three  Sisters,  the  Spirit  of  Maize,  the  Spirit  of  the  Bean,  and 
the  Spirit  of  the  Squash.  The  latter  were  styled,  collectively, 
"  Our  Life,"  and  also  "Our  Supporters."  Beside  these  were  the 
spirits  of  the  several  kinds  of  trees  and  plants,  and  of  the  run- 
ning streams.  The  existence  and  attributes  of  these  numerous 
spiritual  beings  were  but  feebly  imagined.  Among  the  tribes  in 
the  Lower  Status  of  barbarism  idolatry  was  unknown.^  The 
Aztecs  had  personal  ggds,  with  idols  to  represent  them,  and  a 
temple  worship.  If  the  particulars  of  their  religious  system  were 
accurately  known,  its  growth  out  of  the  common  beliefs  of  the 
Indian  tribes  would  probably  be  made  apparent. 

Dancing  was  a  form  of  w^orship  among  the  American  abo- 
rigines, and  formed  a  part  of  the  ceremonies  at  all  religious  fes- 
tivals. In  no  part  of  the  earth,  among  barbarians,  has  the 
dance  received  a  more  studied  development.  Every  tribe  has 
from  ten  to  thirty  set  dances ;  each  of  which  has  its  own  name, 
songs,  musical  instruments,  steps,  plan  and  costume  for  persons. 
Some  of  them,  as  the  war- dance,  were  common  to  all  the  tribes. 
Particular  dances  are  special  property,  belonging  either  to  a  gens, 
or  to  a  society  organized  for  its  maintenance,  into  which  new 
members  were  from  time  to  time  initiated.  The  dances  of  the 
Dakotas,  the  Crees,  the  Ojibwas,  the  Iroquois,  and  of  the  Pueblo 
Indians  of  New  Mexico,  are  the  same  in  general  character,  in 
step,  plan,  and  music;  and  the  same  is  true  of  the  dances  of  the 
Aztecs  so  far  as  they  are  accurately  known.  It  is  one  system 
throughout  the  Indian  tribes,  and  bears  a  direct  relation  to 
their  system  of  faith  and  worship. 
I      VI.  A  supreme  government  tJiro7igJi  a  council  of  cJiidfs. 

The  council  had  a  natural  foundation  in  the  gcntes  of  whose 
chiefs  it  was  composed.  It  met  a  necessary  want,  and  was 
certain  to  remain  as  long  as  gentile  society  endured.      As  the 

'  Near  the  close  of  the  last  century  the  Seneca- Iroquois,  at  one  of  their  villages 
on  the  Alleghany  river,  set  up  an  idol  of  wood,  and  performed  dances  and  other 
religious  ceremonies  around  it.  My  informer,  the  late  William  Parker,  saw  this 
idol  in  the  river  into  which  it  had  been  cast.  Whom  it  personated  he  did  not 
learn. 


THE  IROQUOIS  TRIBE. 


117 


gens  was  represented  by  its  chiefs,  so  the  tribe  was  represented 
by  a  council  composed  of  the  chiefs  of  the  gentes.  It  was  a 
permanent  feature  of  the  social  system,  holding  the  ultimate 
authority  over  the  tribe.  Called  together  under  circumstances 
known  to  all,  held  in  the  midst  of  the  people,  and  open  to  their 
orators,  it  was  certain  to  act  under  popular  influence.  Al- 
though oligarchical  in  form,  the  government  was  a  representa- 
!tive  democracy;  the  representative  being  elected  for  life,  but 
subject  to  deposition.  The  brotherhood  of  the  mem.bers  of 
■  each  gens,  and  the  elective  principle  with  respect  to  office,  were 
the  germ  and  the  basis  of  the  democratic  principle.  Imperfectly 
developed,  as  other  great  principles  were  in  this  early  stage  of 
advancement,  democracy  can  boast  a  very  ancient  pedigree  in 
the  tribes  of  mankind. 

It  devolved  upon  the  council  to  guard  and  protect  the  com- 
mon interests  of  the  tribe.  Upon  the  intelligence  and  courage 
of  the  people,  and  upon  the  Avisdom  and  foresight  of  the  coun- 
cil, the  prosperity  and  the  existence  of  the  tribe  depended. 
Questions  and  exigencies  were  arising,  through  their  incessant 
warfare  with  other  tribes,  whicfh  required  the  exercise  of  all  these 
qualities  to  meet  and  manage.  It  was  unavoidable,  therefore, 
that  the  popular  element  should  be  commanding  in  its  influ- 
ence. As  a  general  rule  the  council  was  open  to  any  private 
individual  who  desired  to  address  it  on  a  public  question.  Even 
the  women  were  allowed  to  express  their  wishes  and  opinions 
through  an  orator  of  their  own  selection.  But  the  decision  was 
made  by  the  council.  Unanimity  was  a  fundamental  law  of  its 
action  among  the  Iroquois;  but  whether  this  usage  was  general 
I  am  unable  to  state. 

Military  operations  were  usually  left  to  the  action  of  the 
voluntary  principle.  Theoretically,  each  tribe  was  at  war  with 
every  other  tribe  with  which  it  had  not  formed  a  treaty  of 
peace.  Any  person  was  at  liberty  to  organize  a  war-party  and 
conduct  an  expedition  wherever  he  pleased.  He  announced 
his  project  by  giving  a  war-dance  and  inviting  volunteers. 
This  method  furnished  a  practical  test  of  the  popularity  of  the 
undertaking.  If  he  succeeded  in  forming  a  company,  which 
would  consist  of  such  persons  as  joined  him  in  the  dance,  they 


1 1 8  ANCIENT  SOCIETY. 

departed  immediately,  while  enthusiasm  was  at  its  height. 
When  a  tribe  was  menaced  with  an  attack,  war-parties  were 
formed  to  meet  it  in  much  the  same  manner.  Where  forces 
thus  raised  were  united  in  one  body,  each  was  under  its  own 
war-captain,  and  their  joint  movements  were  determined  by  a 
council  of  these  captains.  If  there  was  among  them  a  war- 
chief  of  established  reputation  he  would  naturally  become  their 
leader.  These  statements  relate  to  tribes  in  the  Lower  Status 
of  barbarism.  The  Aztecs  and  Tlascalans  went  out  by  phra- 
tries,  each  subdivision  under  its  own  captain,  and  distinguished 
by  costumes  and  banners. 

Indian  tribes,  and  even  confederacies,  were  weak  organiza- 
tions for  military  operations.  That  of  the  Iroquois,  and  that 
of  the  Aztecs,  were  the  most  remarkable  for  aggressive  pur- 
poses. Among  the  tribes  in  the  Lower  Status  of  barbarism, 
including  the  Iroquois,  the  most  destructive  work  was  per- 
formed by  inconsiderable  war-parties,  which  were  constantly 
forming  and  making  expeditions  into  distant  regions.  Their 
supply  of  food  consisted  of  parched  corn  reduced  to  flour, 
carried  in  a  pouch  attached  to  the  belt  of  each  warrior,  with 
such  fish  and  game  as  the  route  supplied.  The  going  out  of 
these  'war-parties,  and  their  public  reception  on  their  return, 
were  among  the  prominent  events  in  Indian  life.  The  sanction; 
of  the  council  for  these  expeditions  was  not  sought,  neither 
was  it  necessary. 

The  council  of  the  tribe  had  power  to  declare  war  and  make 
peace,  to  send  and  receive  embassies,  and  to  make  alliances. 
It  exercised  all  the  powers  needful  in  a  government  so  simple 
and  limited  in  its  affairs.  Intercourse  between  independent 
tribes  was  conducted  by  delegations  of  wise-men  and  chiefs. 
When  such  a  delegation  was  expected  by  any  tribe,  a  council 
was  convened  for  its  reception,  and  for  the  transaction  of  its 
business. 

VII.  A  Jicad-cJiicf  of  the  tribe  in  sonic  instances. 

In  some  Indian  tribes  one  of  the  sachems  was  recognized  as 
its  head-chief;  and  as  superior  in  rank  to  his  associates.  A 
need  existed,  to  some  extent,  for  an  official  head  of  the  tribe  to 
represent  it  when  the  council  was  not  in  session;  but  the  duties 


THE  IROQUOIS  TRIBE. 


119 


and  powers  of  the  office  were  slight.  Although  the  council 
was  supreme  in  authority  it  was  rarely  in  session,  and  questions 
might  arise  demanding  the  provisional  action  of  some  one 
authorized  to  represent  the  tribe,  subject  to  the  ratification  of 
his  acts  by  the  council.  This  was  the  only  basis,  so  far  as  the 
writer  is  aware,  for  the  office  of  head-chief  It  existed  in  a 
number  of  tribes,  but  in  a  form  of  authority  so  feeble  as  to  fall 
below  the  conception  of  an  executive  magistrate.  In  the  lan- 
guage of  some  of  the  early  writers  they  have  been  designated 
as  kings,  which  is  simply  a  caricature.  The  Indian  tribes  had 
not  advanced  far  enough  in  a  knowledge  of  government  to  de- 
velop the  idea  of  a  chief  executive  magistrate.  The  Iroquois 
tribe  recognized  no  head-chief,  and  the  confederacy  no  execu- 
tive officer.  The  elective  tenure  of  the  office  of  chief,  and  the 
Hability  of  the  person  to  deposition,  settle  the  character  of  the 
office. 

A  council  of  Indian  chiefs  is  of  little  importance  by  itself; 
but  as  the  germ  of  the  modern  parliament,  congress,  and  legis- 
lature, it  has  an  important  bearing  in  the  history  of  mankind. 

The  growth  of  the  idea  of  government  commenced  with 
the  organization  into  gentes  in  savagery.  It  reveals  three 
great  stages  of  progressive  development  between  its  com- 
mencement and  the  institution  of  political  society  after  civiliza- 
tion had  been  attained.  The  first  stage  was  the  government 
of  a  tribe  by  a  council  of  chiefs  elected  by  the  gentes.  It  may 
be  called  a  government  of  one  pozvo^;  namely,  the  council.  It 
prevailed  generally  among  tribes  in  the  Lower  Status  of  bar- 
barism. The  second  stage  was  a  government  co-ordinated  be- 
tween a  council  of  chiefs,  and  a  general  military  commander; 
one  representing  the  civil,  and  the  other  the  military  functions. 
This  second  form  began  to  manifest  itself  in  the  Lower  Status 
of  barbarism,  after  confederacies  were  formed,  and  it  became 
definite  in  the  Middle  Status.  The  office  of  general,  or  princi- 
pal military  commander,  was  the  germ  of  that  of  a  chief  ex- 
ecutive magistrate,  the  king,  the  emperor,  and  the  president. 
It  may  be  called  a  government  of  two  powers,  namely,  the 
council  of  chiefs,  and  the  general.  The  third  stage  was  the 
government  of  a  people  or  nation  by  a  council  of  chiefs,  an 


1 20  ANCIEA  T  SOCIE T  Y. 

assembly  of  the  people,  and  a  general  military  commander.  It 
appeared  among  the  tribes  who  had  attained  to  the  Upper 
Status  of  barbarism;  such,  for  example,  as  the  Homeric  Greeks, 
and  the  Italian  tribes  of  the  period  of  Romulus.  A  large  in- 
crease in  the  number  of  people  united  in  a  nation,  their  estab- 
lishment in  walled  cities,  and  the  creation  of  wealth  in  lands 
and  in  flocks  and  herds,  brought  in  the  assembly  of  the  people 
as  an  instrument  of  government.  The  council  of  chiefs,  which 
still  remained,  found  it  necessary,  no  doubt  through  popular 
constraint,  to  submit  the  most  important  public  measures  to  an 
assembly  of  the  people  for  acceptance  or  rejection;  whence  the 
popular  assembly.  This  assembly  did  not  originate  measures. 
It  was  its  function  to  adopt  or  reject,  and  its  action  was  final. 
From  its  first  appearance  it  became  a  permanent  power  in  the 
government.  The  council  no  longer  passed  important  public 
measures,  but  became  a  pre-considering  council,  with  power  to 
originate  and  mature  public  acts,  to  which  the  assembly  alone 
could  give  validity.  It  may  be  called  a  government  of  three 
powers ;  namely,  the  prc-co7isidcring  council,  the  assembly  of 
the  people,  and  the  general.  This  remained  until  the  institu- 
tion of  political  society,  when,  for  example,  among  the  Athe- 
nians, the  council  of  chiefs  became  the  senate,  and  the  assembly 
of  the  people  the  ecclesia  or  popular  assembly.  The  same  or- 
ganizations have  come  down  to  modern  times  in  the  two  houses 
of  parliament,  of  congress,  and  of  legislatures.  In  like  manner 
the  office  of  general  military  commander,  as  before  stated,  was 
the  germ  of  the  office  of  the  modern  chief  executive  magistrate. 
Recurring  to  the  tribe,  it  was  limited  in  the  numbers  of  the 
people,  feeble  in  strength,  and  poor  in  resources ;  but  yet  a 
completely  organized  society.  It  illustrates  the  condition  of 
mankind  in  the  Lower  Status  of  barbarism.  In  the  Middle 
Status  there  was  a  sensible  increase  of  numbers  in  a  tribe,  and 
an  improved  condition  ;  but  with  a  continuance  of  gentile  soci- 
ety without  essential  change.  Political  society  was  still  im- 
possible from  want  of  advancement.  The  gentes  organized  into 
tribes  remained  as  before;  but  confederacies  must  have  been 
more  frequent.  In  some  areas,  as  in  the  Valley  of  Mexico, 
larger  numbers  were  developed  under  a  common  government, 


THE  IROQUOIS  TRIBE.  1 2.1 

with  improvements  in  the  arts  of  hfe ;  but  no  evidence  exists 
of  the  overthrow  among  them  of  gentile  society  and  the  sub- 
stitution of  poHtical.  It  is  impossible  to  found  a  political  soci- 
ety or  a  state  upon  gentes.  A  state  must  rest  upon  territory 
and  not  upon  persons,  upon  the  township  as  the  unit  of  a  po- 
litical system,  and  not  upon  the  gens  which  is  the  unit  of  a 
social  system.  It  required  time  and  a  vast  experience,  beyond 
that  of  the  American  Indian  tribes,  as  a  preparation  for  such 
a  fundamental  change  of  systems.  It  also  required  men  of  the 
mental  stature  of  the  Greeks  and  Romans,  and  with  the  expe- 
rience derived  from  a  long  chain  of  ancestors  to  devise  and 
gradually  introduce  that  new  plan  of  government  under  which 
civilized  nations  are  living  at  the  present  time. 

Following  the  ascending  organic  series,  we  are  next  to  con- 
sider the  confederacy  of  tribes,  in  which  the  gentes  phratries 
and  tribes  will  be  seen  in  new  relations.  The  remarkable 
adaptation  of  the  gentile  organization  to  the  condition  and 
wants  of  mankind,  while  in  a  barbarous  state,  will  thereby  be 
further  illustrated. 


CHAPTER  V. 

THE   IROQUOIS   CONFEDERACY. 

Confederacies  Natural  Growths. — Founded  upon  Common  Gentes, 
AND  A  Common  Language.— The  Iroquois  Tribes. — Their  Settlement  in 
New  York.— Formation  of  the  Confederacy. — Its  Structure  and  Prin- 
ciples.— Fifty  Sachemships  Created. — Made  Hereditary  in  certain 
Gentes. — Number  assigned  to  each  Tribe. — These  Sachems  formed  the 
Council  of  the  Confederacy. — The  Civil  Council. — Its  Mode  of  Trans- 
acting Business. — Unanimity  Necessary  to  its  Action. — The  Mourning 
Council.— Mode  of  Raising  up  Sachems. — General  Military  Command- 
ers.— This  Office  the  Germ  of  that  of  a  Chief  Executive  Magistrate. — 
Intellectual  Capacity  of  the  Iroquois. 

A  tendency  to  confederate  for  mutual  defense  would  very 
naturally  exist  among  kindred  and  contiguous  tribes.  When 
the  advantages  of  a  union  had  been  appreciated  by  actual  ex- 
perience the  organization,  at  first  a  league,  would  gradually 
cement  into  a  federal  unity.  The  state  of  perpetual  warfare  in 
which  they  lived  would  quicken  this  natural  tendency  into  ac- 
tion among  such  tribes  as  were  sufficiently  advanced  in  intelli- 
gence and  in  the  arts  of  life  to  perceive  its  benefits.  It  would 
be  simply  a  growth  from  a  lower  into  a  higher  organization  by 
an  extension  of  the  principle  which  united  the  gentes  in  a  tribe. 

As  might  have  been  expected,  several  confederacies  existed 
in  different  parts  of  North  America  when  discovered,  some  of 
which  were  quite  remarkable  in  plan  and  structure.  Among  the 
number  may  be  mentioned  the  Iroquois  Confederacy  of  five  in- 
dependent tribes,  the  Creek  Confederacy  of  six,  the  Otawa  Con- 
federacy of  three,  the  Dakota  League  of  the  "Seven  Council-" 
Fires,"  the  Moqui  Confederacy  in  New  Mexico  of  Seven  Pueb- 


THE  IROQUOIS  CONFEDERACY.  123 

los,  and  the  Aztec  Confederacy  of  three  tribes  in  the  Valley 
of  Mexico.  It  is  probable  that  the  Village  Indians  in  other 
parts  of  Mexico,  in  Central  and  in  South  America,  were  quite 
generally  organized  in  confederacies  consisting  of  two  or  more 
kindred  tribes.  Progress  necessarily  took  this  direction  from 
the  nature  of  their  institutions,  and  from  the  law  governing 
their  development.  Nevertheless  the  formation  of  a  confeder- 
acy out  of  such  materials,  and  with  such  unstable  geographical 
relations,  was  a  difficult  undertaking.  It  was  easiest  of  achieve- 
ment by  the  Village  Indians  from  the  nearness  to  each  other 
of  their  pueblos,  and  from  the  smallness  of  their  areas;  but  it 
was  accomplished  in  occasional  instances  by  tribes  in  the  Lower 
Status  of  barbarism,  and  notably  by  the  Iroquois.  Wherever 
a  confederacy  was  formed  it  would  of  itself  evince  the  superior 
intelligence  of  the  people. 

The  two  highest  examples  of  Indian  confederacies  in  North 
America  were  those  of  the  Iroquois  and  of  the  Aztecs.  From 
their  acknowledged  superiority  as  military  powers,  and  from 
their  geographical  positions,  these  confederacies,  in  both  cases, 
produced  remarkable  results.  Our  knowledge  of  the  structure 
and  principles  of  the  former  is  definite  and  complete,  while  of 
the  latter  it  is  far  froin  satisfactory.  The  Aztec  confederacy 
,  has  been  handled  in  such  a  manner  historically  as  to  leave  it 
doubtful  whether  it  was  simply  a  league  of  three  kindred  tribes, 
offensive  and  defensive,  or  a  systematic  confederacy  like  that 
of  the  Iroquois.  That  which  is  true  of  the  latter  was  probably 
in  a  general  sense  true  of  the  former,  so  that  a  knowledge  of 
one  will  tend  to  elucidate  the  other. 

The  conditions  under  which  confederacies  spring  into  being 
and  the  principles  on  which  they  are  formed  are  remarkably 
simple.  They  grow  naturally,  with  time,  out  of  pre-existing 
elements.  Where  one  tribe  had  divided  into  several  and  these 
subdivisions  occupied  independent  but  contiguous  territories, 
the  confederacy  re-integrated  them  in  a  higher  organization,  on 
the  basis  of  the  common  gentes  they  possessed,  and  of  the 
affiliated  dialects  they  spoke.  The  sentiment  of  kin  embodied 
in  the  gens,  the  common  lineage  of  the  gentes,  and  their  dia- 
lects still  mutually  intelligible,  yielded  the  material  elements  for 


124 


ANCIENT  SOCIETY. 


a  confederation.  The  confederacy,  therefore,  had  the  gentes 
for  its  basis  and  centre,  and  stock  language  for  its  circumfer- 
ence. No  one  has  been  found  that  reached  beyond  the  bounds 
of  the  dialects  of  a  common  language.  If  this  natural  barrier 
had  been  crossed  it  would  have  forced  heterogeneous  elements 
into  the  organization.  Cases  have  occurred  where  the  remains 
of  a  tribe,  not  cognate  in  speech,  as  the  Natchez,^  have  been 
admitted  into  an  existing  confederacy;  but  this  exception  would 
not  invalidate  the  general  proposition.  It  was  impossible  for 
an  Indian  power  to  arise  upon  the  American  continent  through 
a  confederacy  of  tribes  organized  in  gentes,  and  advance  to  a 
general  supremacy  unless  their  numbers  were  developed  from 
their  own  stock.  The  multitude  of  stock  languages  is  a  stand- 
ing explanation  of  the  failure.  There  was  no  possible  way  of 
becoming  connected  on  equal  terms  with  a  confederacy  except- 
ing through  membership  in  a  gens  and  tribe,  and  a  common 
speech. 

It  may  here  be  remarked,  parenthetically,  that  it  was  impos- 
sible in  the  Lower,  in  the  Middle,  or  in  the  Upper  Status  of 
barbarism  for  a  kingdom  to  arise  by  natural  growth  in  any  part 
of  the  earth  under  gentile  institutions.  I  venture  to  make  this 
suggestion  at  this  early  stage  of  the  discussion  in  order  to  call 
attention  more  closely  to  the  structure  and  principles  of  ancient 
society,  as  organized  in  gentes,  phratries  and  tribes.  Monarchy 
is  incompatible  with  gentilism.  It  belongs  to  the  later  period 
of  civilization.  Despotisms  appeared  in  some  instances  among 
the  Grecian  tribes  in  the  Upper  Status  of  barbarism;  but  they 
were  founded  upon  usurpation,  were  considered  illegitimate  by 
the  people,  and  were,  in  fact,  alien  to  the  ideas  of  gentile  so- 
ciety. The  Grecian  tyrannies  were  despotisms  founded  upon 
usurpation,  and  were  the  germ  out  of  which  the  later  kingdoms 
arose;  while  the  so-called  kingdoms  of  the  heroic  age  were 
military  democracies,  and  nothing  more, 

'  The  Iroquois  have  furnished  an  excellent  illustration  of  the 
manner  in  which  a  confederacy  is  formed  by  natural  growth  as- 
sisted by  skillful  legislation.      Originally  emigrants  from  beyond 

'  They  were  admitted  into  the  Creek  Confederacy  after  their  overthrow  by  the 
French. 


THE  IROQUOIS  CONFEDERACY. 


125 


the  IMississippi,  and  probably  a  branch  of  the  Dakota  stock, 
they  first  made  their  way  to  the  valley  of  the  St.  Lawrence  and 
settled  themselves  near  Montreal.  Forced  to  leave  this  region 
by  the  hostility  of  surrounding  tribes,  they  sought  the  central 
region  of  New  York.  Coasting  the  eastern  shore  of  Lake  On- 
tario in  canoes,  for  their  numbers  were  small,  they  made  their 
first  settlement  at  the  mouth  of  the  Oswego  river,  where,  ac- 
cording to  their  traditions,  they. remained  for  a  long  period  of 
time.  They  were  then  in  at  least  three  distinct  tribes,  the  Mo- 
hawks, the  Onondagas,  and  the  Senecas.  One  tribe  subse- 
quently established  themselves  at  the  head  of  the  Canandaigua 
lake  and  became  the  Senecas.  Another  tribe  occupied  the 
Onondaga  Valley  and  became  the  Onondagas.  The  third 
passed  eastward  and  settled  first  at  Oneida  near  the  site  of 
Utica,  from  which  place  the  main  portion  removed  to  the  Mo- 
hawk Valley  and  became  the  Mohawks.  Those  \\\\o  remained 
became  the  Oneidas.  A  portion  of  the  Onondagas  or  Senecas 
settled  along  the  eastern  shore  of  the  Cayuga  lake  and  became 
the  Cayugas.  New  York,  before  its  occupation  by  the  Iro- 
quois, seems  to  have  been  a  part  of  the  area  of  the  Algonkin 
tribes.  According  to  Iroquois  traditions  they  displaced  its  an- 
terior inhabitants  as  they  gradually  extended  their  settlements 
eastward  to  the  Hudson,  and  westward  to  the  Genesee.  Their 
traditions  further  declare  that  a  long  period  of  time  elapsed 
after  their  settlement  in  New  York  before  the  confederacy  was 
formed,  during  which  they  made  common  cause  against  their 
enemies  and  thus  experienced  the  advantages  of  the  federal 
principle  both  for  aggression  and  defense.  They  resided  in  vil- 
lages, which  were  usually  surrounded  with  stockades,  and  sub- 
sisted upon  fish  and  game,  and  the  products  of  a  limited  horti- 
culture. In  numbers  they  did  not  at  any  time  exceed  20,000 
souls,  if  they  ever  reached  that  number.  Precarious  subsist- 
ence and  incessant  warfare  repressed  numbers  in  all  the  aborig- 
inal tribes,  including  the  Village  Indians  as  well.  The  Iroquois 
were  enshrouded  in  the  great  forests,  which  then  overspread 
New  York,  against  which  they  had  no  power  to  contend. 
They  were  first  discovered  A.  D.  1608.  About  1675,  they 
attained  their  culminating  point  when  their  dominion  reached 


126  ANCIENT  SOCIETY. 

over  an  area  remarkably  large,  covering  the  greater  parts  of 
New  York,  Pennsylvania  and  Ohio,^  and  portions  of  Canada 
north  of  Lake  Ontario.  At  the  time  of  their  discovery  they 
were  the  highest  representatives  of  the  Red  Race  north  of  New 
Mexico  in  intelligence  and  advancement,  though  perhaps  in- 
ferior to  some  of  the  Gulf  tribes  in  the  arts  of  life.  In  the  ex- 
tent and  quality  of  their  mental  endowments  they  must  be 
ranked  among  the  highest  Indians  in  America.  Although 
they  have  declined  in  numbers  there  are  still  four  thousand 
Iroquois  in  New  York,  about  a  thousand  in  Canada,  and  near 
that  number  in  the  West;  thus  illustrating  the  efficiency  as  well 
as  persistency  of  the  arts  of  barbarous  life  in  sustaining  exist- 
ence.     It  is  now  said  that  they  are  slowly  increasing. 

When  the  confederacy  was  formed,  about  A.  D.  1400-1450,* 
the  conditions  previously  named  were  present.  The  Iroquois 
was  in  five  independent  tribes,  occupied  territories  contiguous 
to  each  other,  and  spoke  dialects  of  the  same  language  which 
were  mutually  intelligible.  Beside  these  facts  certain  gentes 
were  common  in  the  several  tribes  as  has  been  shown.  In 
their  relations  to  each  other,  as  separated  parts  of  the  same 
gens,  these  common  gentes  afforded  a  natural  and  enduring 
basis  for  a  confederacy.  With  these  elements  existing,  the 
formation  of  a  confederacy  became  a  question  of  intelligence 
and  skill.  Other  tribes  in  large  numbers  were  standing  in  pre- 
cisely the  same  relations  in  different  parts  of  the  continent  with- 
out confederating.  The  fact  that  the  Iroquois  tribes  accom- 
iplished  the  work  affords  evidence  of  their  superior  capacity. 
Moreover,  as  the  confederacy  was  the  ultimate  stage  of  organ- 
ization among  the  American  aborigines  its  existence  would  be 
expected  in  the  most  intelligent  tribes  only. 

It  is  affirmed  by  the  Iroquois  that  the  confederacy  was  form- 
ed by  a  council  of  wise-men  and  chiefs  of  the  five  tribes  which 

*  About  165 1-5,  they  expelled  their  kindred  tribes,  the  Eries,  from  the  region 
between  the  Genesee  river  and  Lake  Erie,  and  shortly  afterwards  the  Neutral  Na- 
tions from  the  Niagara  river,  and  thus  came  into  possession  of  the  remainder 
of  New  York,  with  the  exception  of  the  lower  Hudson  and  Long  Island. 

*  The  Iroquois  claimed  that  it  had  existed  from  one  hundred  and  fifty  to  two 
hundred  years  when  they  first  saw  Europeans.  The  generations  of  sachems  in 
the  history  by  David  Cusick  (a  Tuscarora),  would  make  it  more  ancient. 


THE  IROQUOIS  CONFEDERACY.  12/ 

met  for  that  purpose,  on  the  north  shore  of  Onondaga  lake, 
near  the  site  of  Syracuse;  and  that  before  its  session  was  con- 
cluded the  organization  was  perfected,  and  set  in  immediate 
operation.  At  their  periodical  councils  for  raising  up  sachems 
they  still  explain  its  origin  as  the  result  of  one  protracted  effort 
of  legislation.  It  was  probably  a  consequence  of  a  previous  al- 
liance for  mutual  defense,  the  advantages  of  which  they  had 
perceived  and  which  they  sought  to  render  permanent. 

The  origin  of  the  plan  is  ascribed  to  a  mythical,  or,  at  least, 
traditionary  person,  Hd-yo-zvcnt'-Jid,  the  Hiawatha  of  Long- 
fellow's celebrated  poem,  who  was  present  at  this  council  and 
the  central  person  in  its  management.  In  his  communications 
with  the  council  he  used  a  wise-man  of  the  Onondagas,  Da-gd- 
no-we' -da,  as  an  interpreter  and  speaker  to  expound  the  struct- 
ure and  principles  of  the  proposed  confederacy.  The  same 
tradition  further  declares  that  when  the  work  was  accomplished 
Hd-yo-went! -hd  miraculously  disappeared  in  a  white  canoe, 
which  arose  with  him  in  the  air  and  bore  him  out  of  their  sight. 
Other  prodigies,  according  to  this  tradition,  attended  and  sig- 
nalized the  formation  of  the  confederacy,  which  is  still  cele- 
brated among  them  as  a  masterpiece  of  Indian  wisdom.  Such 
in  truth  it  was;  and  it  will  remain  in  history  as  a  monument  of 
their  genius  in  developing  gentile  institutions.  It  will  also  be 
remembered  as  an  illustration  of  what  tribes  of  mankind  have 
been  able  to  accomplish  in  the  art  of  government  while  in  the 
Lower  Status  of  barbarism,  and  under  the  disadvantages  this 
condition  implies.  -     { 

Which  of  the  two  persons  was  the  founder  of  the  confeder-  ^  / 
acy   it   is   difficult  to   determine.     The   silent  Hd-yo-iuent' -hd  ^  \ 
was,  not  unlikely,  a  real  person  of  Iroquois  lineage;^  but  tradi-     \> 
tion  has  enveloped  his  character  so  completely  in  the  super-  C 
natural  that  he  loses  his  place  among  them  as  one  of  their  l-vT* 
number.      If  Hiawatha  were   a   real   person,  Da-gd-no-zvc' -dd  ^ 
must  hold  a  subordinate  place;  but,  if  a  mythical  person  in- 
voked for  the  occasion,  then  to  the  latter  belongs  the  credit  of 
planning  the  confederacy. 

'  My  friend,  Horatio  Hale,  the  eminent  philologist,  came,  as  he  informed  me,  to 
this  conclusion. 


^ 


128  ANCIENT  SOCIETY, 

The  Iroquois  affirm  that  the  confederacy  as  formed  by  this 
council,  with  its  powers  functions  and  mode  of  administration, 
has  come  down  to  them  through  many  generations  to  the  pres- 
ent time  with  scarcely  a  change  in  its  internal  organization. 
When  the  Tuscaroras  were  subsequently  admitted,  their  sa- 
chems were  allowed  by  courtesy  to  sit  as  equals  in  the  general 
council,  but  the  original  number  of  sachems  was  not  increased, 
and  in  strictness  those  of  the  Tuscaroras  formed  no  part  of  the 
ruling  body. 

The  general  features  of  the  Iroquois  Confederacy  may  be 
.summarized  in  the  following  propositions: 

I.  The  confederacy  was  a  union  of  Five  Tribes,  composed  of 
common  gentes,  under  one  government  on  the  basis  of  equal- 
ity; each  Tribe  remaining  independent  in  all  matters  pertaining 
to  local  self-government. 

II.  It  created  a  General  Council  of  Sachems,  who  were  lim- 
ited in  number,  equal  in  rank  and  authority,  and  invested  with 
supreme  pov/ers  over  all  matters  pertaining  to  the  Confederacy. 

III.  Fifty  Sachemships  were  created  and  named  in  perpetuity 
in  certain  gentes  of  the  several  Tribes;  with  power  in  these 
gentes  to  fill  vacancies,  as  often  as  they  occurred,  by  election 
from  among  their  respective  members,  and  with  the  further 
power  to  depose  from  office  for  cause;  but  the  right  to  invest 
these  Sachems  with  office  was  reserved  to  the  General  Council. 

IV.  The  Sachems  of  the  Confederacy  were  also  Sachems  in 
their  respective  Tribes,  and  with  the  Chiefs  of  these  Tribes  form- 
ed the  Council  of  each,  which  was  supreme  over  all  matters  per- 
taining to  the  Tribe  exclusively. 

V.  Unanimity  in  the  Council  of  the  Confederacy  was  maaef 
essential  to  every  public  act.  ,,_^ 

VI.  In  the  General  Council  the  Sachems  voted  by  Tribes, 
which  gave  to  each  Tribe  a  negative  upon  the  others. 

VII.  The  Council  of  each  Tribe  had  power  to  convene  the 
General  Council;  but  the  latter  had  no  power  to  convene  itself. 

VIII.  The  General  Council  was  open  to  the  orators  of  the 
people  for  the  discussion  of  public  questions;  but  the  Council 
alone  decided. 

IX.  The  Confederacy  had  no  chief  Executive  Magistrate,  or 
official  head. 


THE  IROQ  UOIS  CONFEDERA  CV.  1 2  9 

X.  Experiencing  the  necessity  for  a  General  Military  Com- 
mander  they  created  the  office  in  a  dual  form,  that  one  might 
neutralize  the  other.  The  two  principal  War-chiefs  created 
were  made  equal  in  powers. 

These  several  propositions  will  be  considered  and  illustrated, 
but  without  following  the  precise  form  or  order  in  which  they 
are  stated. 

At  the  institution  of  the  confederacy  fifty  permanent  sachem- 
ships  were  created  and  named,  and  made  perpetual  in  the  gen- 
tes  to  which  they  were  assigned.  With  the  exception  of  two, 
which  were  filled  but  once,  they  have  been  held  by  as  many 
different  persons  in  succession  as  generations  have  passed 
away  between  that  time  and  the  present.  The  name  of  each 
sachemship  is  also  the  personal  name  of  each  sachem  while  he 
holds  the  office,  each  one  in  succession  taking  the  name  of  his 
predecessor.  These  sachems,  when  in  session,  formed  the 
council  of  the  confederacy  in  which  the  legislative,  executive, 
and  judicial  powers  were  vested,  although  such  a  discrimina- 
tion of  functions  had  not  come  to  be  made.  To  secure  order 
in  the  succession,  the  several  gentes  in  which  these  offices  were 
made  hereditary  were  empowered  to  elect  successors  from 
1  among  their  respective  members  when  vacancies  occurred,  as 
elsewhere  explained.  As  a  further  measure  of  protection  to 
their  own  body  each  sachem,  after  his  election  and  its  confir- 
mation, was  invested  with  his  office  by  a  council  of  the  confed- 
eracy. When  thus  installed  his  name  was  "taken  away"  and 
that  of  the  sachemship  was  bestowed  upon  him.  By  this  name 
he  was  afterwards  known  among  them.  They  were  all  upon 
equality  in  rank,  authority,  and  privileges. 

These  sachemships  were  distributed  unequally  among  the 
five  tribes;  but  without  giving  to  either  a  preponderance  of 
power;  and  unequally  among  the  gentes  of  the  last  three  tribes. 
The  Mohawks  had  nine  sachems,  the  Oneidas  nine,  the  Onon- 
dagas  fourteen,  the  Cayugas  ten,  and  the  Senecas  eight.  This 
was  the  number  at  first,  and  it  has  remained  the  number  to  the 
present  time.  A  table  of  these  sachemships  is  subjoined,  with 
their  names  in  the  Seneca  dialect,  and  their  arrangement  in 
classes  to  facilitate  the  attainment  of  unanimity  in  council.  In 
9 


I30  ANCIENT  SOCIETY. 

foot-notes  will  be  found  the  signification  of  these  names,  and 
the  gentes  to  which  they  belonged. 

Table  of  sa^hemships  of  the  Iroquois,  founded  at  the  institu- 
tion of  the  Confederacy;  with  the  names  which  have  been 
borne  by  their  sachems  in  succession,  from  its  formation  to  the 
present  time: 

Mohawks. 
I.    I.   Da-ga-e'-o-ga.'      2.    Ha-yo-went'-ha.^      3.    Da-ga-no- 

we'-da.^ 
II.   4.   So-a-e-wa'-ah.*     5.  Da-yo'-ho-go.^     6.  O-a-a'-go-wa.^ 
III.    7.    Da-an-no-ga'-e-neh.'^       8.    Sa-da'-ga-e-wa-deh.^       9. 
Has-da-weh'-se-ont-ha.^ 

Oneidas. 
I.    I,    Ho-das'-ha-teh.^"      2.    Ga-no-gweh'-yo-do."      3.    Da- 

yo-ha'-gwen-da.^^ 
II.  4.   So-no-sase'.^^      5.    To-no-a-ga'-o."      6.    Ha-de-a-dun- 
nent'-ha.^^ 
III.    7.    Da-wa-da'-o-da-yo.^"      8.    Ga-ne-a-dus'-ha-yeh."      9. 
Ho-wus'-ha-da-o.^^ 

Onondagas. 
I.    I.  To-do-da'-ho.^^    2.  To-nes'-sa-ah.     3.  Da-at'-ga-dose.^** 
II.   4.   Ga-nea-da'-je-wake.^^     5.   Ah-wa'-ga-yat.^^     6.    Da-a- 
yat'-gwa-e. 
III.  7.  Ho-no-we-na'-to.-^ 

1  These  names  signify  as  follows:  i.  "  Neutral, "  or  "  the  Shield."  2.  "Man 
who  Combs."  3.  "Inexhaustible."  4.  "Small  Speech."  5.  "At  the  Forks." 
6.  "At  the  Great  River."  7.  "Dragging  his  Horns."  8.  "Even-Tempered." 
9.  "Hanging  up  Rattles."  The  sachems  in  class  one  belonged  to  the  Turtle 
tribe,  in  class  two  to  the  Wolf  tribe,  and  in  class  three  to  the  Bear  tribe. 

10.  "A  Man  bearing  a  Burden."  ii.  "A  Man  covered  with  Cat-tail  Down." 
12.  "Opening  through  the  Woods."  13.  "A  Long  String."  14.  "A  Man  with 
a  Headache."  15.  "Swallowing  Himself."  16.  "Place  of  the  Echo."  17. 
"War-club  on  the  Ground."  18.  "A  Man  Steaming  Himself."  The  sachems 
in  the  first  class  belonged  to  the  Wolf  tribe,  in  the  second  to  the  Turtle  tribe,  and 
in  the  third  to  the  Bear  tribe. 

19.  "Tangled,"  Bear  tribe.  20.  "On  the  Watch,"  Bear  tribe.  This  sachem 
and  the  one  before  him,  were  hereditary  councilors  of  the  To-do-da'-ho,  who  held 
the  most  illustrioiis  sachemship.  21.  "Bitter  Body,"  Snipe  tribe.  22.  Turtle 
I  tribe.     23.  This  sachem  was  hereditary  keeper  of  the  wampum  ;  Wolf  tribe. 


THE  IROQUOIS  CONFEDERACY. 


131 


IV.   8.   Ga-wa-na'-san-do.^     9.    Ha-e'-ho.^      10.    Ho-yo-ne-ii'- 

ne.^      II.   Sa-da'-kwa-seh.'^ 
V.    12.    Sa-go-ga-ha'.^       13.    Ho-sa-ha'-ho.^       14.    Ska-no'- 
wun-de.'^ 

Cayiigas. 
I.    I.    Da-ga'-a-yo.^      2.    Da-je-no'-da-weh-o.^      3.    Ga-da'- 
gwa-sa.^"     4.   So-yo-wase."     5.   Ha-de-as'-yo-no.^^ 
II.    6.    Da-yo-o-yo'-go."      7.    Jote-ho-weh'-ko.^'*     8.    De-a- 

wate'-ho.^^ 
III.   9.  To-da-e-ho'.^^      10.   Des-ga'-heh.^' 

Scnecas. 
I.    I.   Ga-ne-o-di'-yo.^^     2.   Sa-da-ga'-o-yase.^^ 
II.   3.   Ga-no-gi'-e.^"     4.   Sa-geh'-jo-wa.^^ 

III.  5.   Sa-de-a-no'-wus.^^     6.   Nis-ha-ne-a'-nent.^^ 

IV.  7.   Ga-no-go-e-da'-we.-*     8.   Do-ne-ho-ga'-weh.^^ 

Two  of  these  sachemships  have  been  filled  but  once  since 
their  creation.  Hd-yo-zvent^-hd  and  Da-gd-no-we' -da  consent- 
ed to  take  the  office  among  the  Mohawk  sachems,  and  to  leave 
their  names  in  the  list  upon  condition  that  after  their  demise 
the  two  should  remain  thereafter  vacant.  They  were  installed 
upon  these  terms,  and  the  stipulation  has  been  observed  to  the 
present  day.  At  all  councils  for  the  investiture  of  sachems 
their  names  are  still  called  with  the  others  as  a  tribute  of  re- 
spect to  their  memory.  The  general  council,  therefore,  con- 
sisted of  but  forty-eight  members. 

Each  sachem  had  an  assistant  sachem,  who  was  elected  by 
the  gens  of  his  principal  from  among  its  members,  and  who 
was  installed  with  the  same  forms  and  ceremonies.  He  was 
styled  an  "said."     It  was  his  duty  to  stand  behind  his  superior 

'  Deer  tribe.  2.  Deer  tribe.  3.  Turtle  tribe.  4.  Bear  tribe.  5.  "Having 
a  Glimpse,"  Deer  tribe.  6.  "Large  Mouth,"  Turtle  tribe.  7.  "Over  the 
Creek,"  Turtle  tribe. 

8.  "Man  Frightened,"  Deer  tribe.  9.  Heron  tribe.  10.  Bear  tribe.  II. 
Bear  tribe.  12.  Turtle  tribe.  13.  Not  ascertained.  14.  "Very  Cold,"  Turtle 
tribe.     15.   Heron  tribe.     16.   Snipe  tribe.      17.   Snipe  tribe. 

18.  "  Handsome  Lake,"  Turtle  tribe.  19.  "Level  Heavens,"  Snipe  tribe.  20. 
Turtle  tribe.  21.  "Great  Forehead,"  Hawk  tribe.  22.  "Assistant,"  Bear  tribe. 
23.  "Falling  Day,"  Snipe  tribe.  24.  "Hair  Burned  Off,"  Snipe  tribe.  25. 
"Open  Door,"  Wolf  tribe. 


132 


ANCIENT  SOCIETY. 


on  all  occasions  of  ceremony,  to  act  as  his  messenger,  and  in 
general  to  be  subject  to  his  directions.  It  gave  to  the  aid  the 
office  of  chief,  and  rendered  probable  his  election  as  the  suc- 
cessor of  his  principal  after  the  decease  of  the  latter.  In  their 
figurative  language  these  aids  of  the  sachems  were  styled 
"Braces  in  the  Long  House,"  which  symbolized  the  confed- 
eracy. 

The  names  bestowed  upon  the  original  sachems  became  the 
names  of  their  respective  successors  in  perpetuity.  For  ex- 
ample, upon  the  demise  of  Gd-iic-o-di'-yo,  one  of  the  eight 
Seneca  sachems,  his  successor  would  be  elected  by  the  Turtle 
gens  in  which  this  sachemship  was  hereditary,  and  when  raised 
up  by  the  general  council  he  would  receive  this  name,  in  place 
of  his  own,  as  a  part  of  the  ceremony.  On  several  different 
occasions  I  have  attended  their  councils  for  raising  up  sachems 
both  at  the  Onondaga  and  Seneca  reservations,  and  witnessed 
the  ceremonies  herein  referred  to.  Although  but  a  shadow  of 
the  old  confederacy  now  remains,  it  is  fully  organized  with  its 
complement  of  sachems  and  aids,  with  the  exception  of  the 
Mohawk  tribe  which  removed  to  Canada  about  1775.  When- 
ever vacancies  occur  their  places  are  filled,  and  a  general  coun- 
cil is  convened  to  install  the  new  sachems  and  their  aids.  The 
present  Iroquois  are  also  perfectly  familiar  with  the  structure 
and  principles  of  the  ancient  confederacy. 

For  all  purposes  of  tribal  government  the  five  tribes  were  in- 
dependent of  each  other.  Their  territories  were  separated  by 
fixed  boundary  lines,  and  their  tribal  interests  were  distinct 
The  eight  Seneca  sachems,  in  conjunction  with  the  other  Sen- 
eca chiefs,  formed  the  council  of  the  tribe  by  which  its  affairs 
were  administered,  leaving  to  each  of  the  other  tribes  the  same 
control  over  their  separate  interests.  As  an  organization  the 
tribe  was  neither  weakened  nor  impaired  by  the  confederate 
compact.  Each  was  in  vigorous  life  within  its  appropriate 
sphere,  presenting  some  analogy  to  our  own  states  within  an 
embracing  republic.  It  is  worthy  of  remembrance  that  the 
Iroquois  commended  to  our  forefathers  a  union  of  the  colonies 
similar  to  their  own  as  early  as  1755.  They  saw  in  the  com- 
mon interests  and  common  speech  of  the  several  colonies  the 


THE  IROQUOIS  CONFEDERACY. 


133 


elements  for  a  confederation,  which  was  as  far  as  their  vision 
was  able  to  penetrate. 

The  tribes  occupied  positions  of  entire  equality  in  the  con- 
federacy, in  rights  privileges  and  obligations.  Such  special  im- 
munities as  were  granted  to  one  or  another  indicate  no  in- 
tention to  establish  an  unequal  compact,  or  to  concede  unequal 
privileges.  There  were  organic  provisions  apparently  invest- 
ing particular  tribes  with  superior  power;  as,  for  example,  the 
Onondagas  were  allowed  fourteen  sachems  and  the  Senecas  but 
eight;  and  a  larger  body  of  sachems  would  naturally  exercise 
a  stronger  influence  in  council  than  a  smaller.  But  in  this  case 
it  gave  no  additional  power,  because  the  sachems  of  each  tribe 
had  an  equal  voice  in  forming  a  decision,  and  a  negative  upQn 
the  others.  When  in  council  they  agreed  by  tribes,  and  unan- 
imity in  opinion  was  essential  to  every  public  act.  The  Onon- 
dagas were  made  "Keepers  of  the  Wampum,"  and  "Keepers 
of  the  Council  Brand,"  the  Mohawks,  "Receivers  of  Tribute" 
from  subjugated  tribes,  and  the  Senecas  "Keepers  of  the  Door" 
of  the  Long  House.  These  and  some  other  similar  provisions 
were  made  for  the  common  advantage. 

The  cohesive  principle  of  the  confederacy  did  not  spring  ex- 
jlclusively  from  the  benefits  of  an  alliance  for  mutual  protection, 
but  had  a  deeper  foundation  in  the  bond  of  kin.  The  confed- 
eracy rested  upon  the  tribes  ostensibly,  but  primarily  upon 
common  gentes.  All  the  members  of  the  same  gens,  whether 
^Mohawks,  Oneidas,  Onondagas,  Cayugas,  or  Senecas,  were 
brothers  and  sisters  to  each  other  in  virtue  of  their  descent 
from  the  same  common  ancestor;  and  they  recognized  each 
other  as  such  with  the  fullest  cordiality.  When  they  met  the 
first  inquiry  was  the  name  of  each  other's  gens,  and  next  the 
immediate  pedigree  of  their  respective  sachems;  after  which 
they  were  usually  able  to  find,  under  their  peculiar  system  of 
consanguinity,^  the  relationship  in  which  they  stood  to  each 

'  The  children  of  brothers  are  themselves  brothers  and  sisters  to  each  other,  the 
children  of  the  latter  were  also  brothers  and  sisters,  and  so  downwards  in- 
definitely ;  the  children  and  descendants  of  sisters  are  the  same.  The  children 
of  a  brother  and  sister  are  cousins,  the  children  of  the  latter  are  cousins,  and  so 
downwards  indefinitely.  A  knowledge  of  the  relationships  to  each  other  of  the 
members  of  the  same  gens  is  never  lost. 


134  ANCIENT  SOCIETY. 

other.  Three  of  the  gentes,  namely,  the  Wolf,  Bear  and 
Turtle,  were  common  to  the  five  tribes;  these  and  three  others 
were  common  to  three  tribes.  In  effect  the  Wolf  gens,  through 
the  division  of  an  original  tribe  into  five,  was  now  in  five  di- 
visions, one  of  which  was  in  each  tribe.  It  was  the  same  with 
the  Bear  and  the  Turtle  gentes.  The  Deer,  Snipe  and  Hawk 
gentes  were  common  to  the  Senecas,  Cayugas  and  Onondagas. 
Between  the  separated  parts  of  each  gens,  although  its  mem- 
bers spoke  different  dialects  of  the  same  language,  there  existed 
a  fraternal  connection  which  linked  the  nations  together  with 
indissoluble  bonds.  When  the  Mohawk  of  the  Wolf  gens  recog- 
nized an  Oneida,  Onondaga,  Cayuga  or  Seneca  of  the  same 
gens  as  a  brother,  and  when  the  members  of  the  other  divided 
gentes  did  the  same,  the  relationship  was  not  ideal,  but  a  fact 
founded  upon  consanguinity,  and  upon  faith  in  an  assured 
lineage  older  than  their  dialects  and  coeval  with  their  unity  as 
one  people.  In  the  estimation  of  an  Iroquois  every  member 
of  his  gens  in  whatever  tribe  was  as  certainly  a  kinsman  as  an 
own  brother.  This  cross- relationship  between  persons  of  the 
same  gens  in  the  different  tribes  is  still  preserved  and  recog- 
nized among  them  in  all  its  original  force.  It  explains  the 
tenacity  with  which  the  fragments  of  the  old  confederacy  still 
cling  together.  If  either  of  the  five  tribes  had  seceded  from 
the  confederacy  it  would  have  severed  the  bond  of  kin,  al- 
though this  would  have  been  felt  but  slightly.  But  had  they 
fallen  into  collision  it  would  have  turned  the  gens  of  the  Wolf 
against  their  gentile  kindred.  Bear  against  Bear,  in  a  word 
brother  against  brother.  The  history  of  the  Iroquois  demon- 
strates the  reality  as  well  as  persistency  of  the  bond  of  kin,  and 
the  fidehty  with  which  it  was  respected.  During  the  long 
period  through  which  the  confederacy  endured,  they  never  fell 
into  anarchy,  nor  ruptured  the  organization. 

The  "Long  House"  {Ho-de'-no-sote)  was  made  the  symbol 
of  the  confederacy;  and  they  styled  themselves  the  "People  of 
the  Long  House"  [Ho-de' -no-sati-nee).  This  was  the  name,  and 
the  only  name,  with  which  they  distinguished  themselves.  The 
confederacy  produced  a  gentile  society  more  complex  than  that 
of  a  single  tribe,  but  it  was  still  distinctively  a  gentile  society. 


THE  IROQUOIS  CONFEDERACY. 


135 


It  was,  however,  a  stage  of  progress  in  the  dh-ection  of  a  na- 
tion, for  nationahty  is  reached  under  gentile  institutions.  Co- 
alescence is  the  last  stage  in  this  process.  The  four  Athenian 
tribes  coalesced  in  Attica  into  a  nation  by  the  intermingling  of 
the  tribes  in  the  same  area,  and  by  the  gradual  disappearance  of 
geographical  lines  between  them.  The  tribal  names  and  organ- 
izations remained  in  full  vitality  as  before,  but  without  the  basis 
of  an  independent  territory.  When  political  society  was  insti- 
tuted on  the  basis  of  the  deme  or  township,  and  all  the  resi- 
dents of  the  deme  became  a  body  politic,  irrespective  of  their 
gens  or  tribe,  the  coalescence  became  complete. 

The  coalescence  of  the  Latin  and  Sabine  gentes  into  the  Ro- 
man people  and  nation  was  a  result  of  the  same  processes.  In 
all  alike  the  gens  phratry  and  tribe  were  the  first  three  stages 
of  organization.  The  confederacy  followed  as  the  fourth.  But 
it  does  not  appear,  either  among  the  Grecian  or  Latin  tribes  in 
the  Later  Period  of  barbarism,  that  it  became  more  than  a  loose 
league  for  offensive  and  defensive  purposes.  Of  the  nature  and 
details  of  organization  of  the  Grecian  and  Latin  confederacies 
our  knowledge  is  limited  and  imperfect,  because  the  facts  are 
buried  in  the  obscurity  of  the  traditionary  period.  The  proc- 
ess of  coalescence  arises  later  than  the  confederacy  in  gentile 
society;  but  it  was  a  necessary  as  well  as  vital  stage  of  progress 
by  means  of  which  the  nation,  the  state,  and  political  society 
were  at  last  attained.  Among  the  Iroquois  tribes  it  had  not 
manifested  itself 

The  valley  of  Onondaga,  as  the  seat  of  the  central  tribe,  and 
the  place  where  the  Council  Brand  was  supposed  to  be  perpet- 
ually burning,  was  the  usual  though  not  the  exclusive  place  for 
holding  the  councils  of  the  confederacy.  In  ancient  times  it 
was  summoned  to  convene  in  the  autumn  of  each  year;  but 
public  exigencies  often  rendered  its  meetings  more  frequent. 
Each  tribe  had  power  to  summon  the  council,  and  to  appoint 
the  time  and  place  of  meeting  at  the  council-house  of  either 
tribe,  when  circumstances  rendered  a  change  from  the  usual 
place  at  Onondaga  desirable.  But  the  council  had  no  power  to 
convene  itself 

Originally  the  principal  object  of  the  council  was  to  raise  up 


136  ANCIENT  SOCIETY. 

sachems  to  fill  vacancies  in  the  ranks  of  the  ruling  body  occa- 
sioned by  death  or  deposition;  but  it  transacted  all  other  busi- 
ness which  concerned  the  common  welfare.  In  course  of  time, 
as  they  multiplied  in  numbers  and  their  intercourse  with  foreign 
tribes  became  more  extended,  the  council  fell  into  three  distinct 
kinds,  which  may  be  distinguished  as  Civil,  Mourning  and  Re- 
ligious. The  first  declared  war  and  made  peace,  sent  and  re- 
ceived embassies,  entered  into  treaties  with  foreign  tribes,  reg- 
ulated the  affairs  of  subjugated  tribes,  and  took  all  needful 
measures  to  promote  the  general  welfare.  The  second  raised 
up  sachems  and  invested  them  with  office.  It  received  the 
name  of  Mourning  Council  because  the  first  of  its  ceremonies 
was  the  lament  for  the  deceased  ruler  whose  vacant  place  was 
to  be  filled.  The  third  was  held  for  the  observance  of  a  gen- 
eral religious  festival.  It  was  made  an  occasion  for  the  confed- 
erated tribes  to  unite  under  the  auspices  of  a  general  council  in 
the  observance  of  common  religious  rites.  But  as  the  Mourn- 
ing Council  was  attended  with  many  of  the  same  ceremonies  it 
came,  in  time,  to  answer  for  both.  It  is  now  the  only  council 
they  hold,  as  the  civil  powers  of  the  confederacy  terminated 
with  the  supremacy  over  them  of  the  state. 

Invoking  the  patience  of  the  reader,  it  is  necessary  to  enter 
into  some  details  with  respect  to  the  mode  of  transacting  busi- 
ness at  the  Civil  and  Mourning  Councils.  In  no  other  way  can 
the  archaic  condition  of  society  under  gentile  institutions  be  so 
readily  illustrated. 

If  an  overture  was  made  to  the  confederacy  by  a  foreign 
tribe,  it  might  be  done  through  either  of  the  five  tribes.  It 
was  the  prerogative  of  the  council  of  the  tribe  addressed  to  de- 
termine whether  the  affair  was  of  sufficient  importance  to  re- 
quire a  council  of  the  confederacy.  After  reaching  an  affirm- 
ative conclusion,  a  herald  was  sent  to  the  nearest  tribes  in 
position,  on  the  east  and  on  the  west,  with  a  belt  of  wampum, 
which  contained  a  message  to  the  effect  that  a  civil  council 
{Ho-de-os' -sell)  would  meet  at  such  a  place  and  time,  and  for 
such  an  object,  each  of  which  was  specified.  It  v/as  the  duty 
of  the  tribe  receiving  the  message  to  forward  it  to  the  tribe 


THE  IROQ  UOIS  CONFEDERAC  Y.  1  3  7 

next  in  position,  until  the  notification  was  made  complete.-' 
!No  council  ever  assembled  unless  it  was  summoned  under  the 
prescribed  forms. 

'  A  civil  council,  which  might  be  called  by  either  nation,  was  usually  summoned 
and  opened  in  the  following  manner :  If,  for  example,  the  Onondagas  made  the 
call,  they  would  send  heralds  to  the  Oneidas  on  the  east,  and  the  Cayugas  on  the 
west  of  them,  with  belts  containing  an  invitation  to  meet  at  the  Onondaga  council- 
grove  on  such  a  day  of  such  a  moon,  for  purposes  which  were  also  named.  It 
would  then  become  the  duty  of  the  Cayugas  to  send  the  same  notification  to  the 
Senecas,  and  of  the  Oneidas  to  notify  the  Mohawks.  If  the  council  was  to  meet 
for  peaceful  purposes,  then  each  sachem  was  to  bring  with  him  a  bundle  of  fagots 
of  white  cedar,  typical  of  peace;  if  for  warlike  objects  then  the  fagots  were  to  be 
of  red  cedar,  emblematical  of  war. 

At  the  day  appointed  the  sachems  of  the  several  nations,  with  their  followers, 
who  usually  arrived  a  day  or  two  before  and  remained  encamped  at  a  distance, 
were  received  in  a  formal  manner  by  the  Onondaga  sachems  at  the  rising  of  the 
sun.  They  marched  in  separate  processions  from  their  camps  to  the  council-grove, 
each  bearing  his  skin  robe  and  bundle  of  fagots,  where  the  Onondaga  sachems 
awaited  them  with  a  concourse  of  people.  The  sachems  then  formed  themselves 
into  a  circle,  an  Onondaga  sachem,  who  by  appointment  acted  as  master  of  the 
ceremonies,  occupying  the  side  toward  the  rising  sun.  At  a  signal  they  marched 
round  the  circle  moving  by  the  north.  It  may  be  here  observed  that  the  rim 
of  the  circle  toward  the  north  is  called  the  "cold  side,"  (o-to'-wa-ga);  that  on  the 
west  "the  side  toward  the  setting  sun,"  (ha-ga-kwas'-gwa);  that  on  the  south 
"the  side  of  the  high  sun,"  (en-de-ih'-kwii);  and  that  on  the  east  "the  side  of  the 
rising  sun,"  (t'-ka-gwit-kas'-gwa).  After  marching  three  times  around  on  the 
circle  single  file,  the  head  and-foot  of  the  column  being  joined,  the  leader  stopped 
on  the  rising  sun  side,  and  deposited  before  him  his  bundle  of  fagots.  In  this  he 
was  followed  by  the  others,  one  at  a  time,  following  by  the  north,  thus  forming  an 
inner  circle  of  fagots.  After  this  each  sachem  spread  his  skin  robe  in  the  same 
order,  and  sat  down  upon  it,  cross-legged,  behind  his  bundle  of  fagots,  with  his 
assistant  sachem  standing  behipd  him.  The  master  of  the  ceremonies,  after  a 
moment's  pause,  arose,  drew  from  his  pouch  two  pieces  of  dry  wood  and  a  piece 
of  punk  with  which  he  proceeded  to  strike  fire  by  friction.  When  fire  was  thus 
obtained,  he  stepped  within  the  circle  and  set  fire  to  his  own  bundle,  and  then  to 
each  of  the  others  in  the  order  in  which  they  were  laid.  When  they  were  well 
ignited,  and  at  a  signal  from  the  master  of  the  ceremonies,  the  sachems  arose  and 
marched  three  times  around  the  Burning  Circle,  going  as  before  by  the  north.  Each 
turned  from  time  to  time  as  he  walked,  so  as  to  expose  all  sides  of  his  person  to  the 
warming  influence  of  the  fires.  This  typified  that  they  warmed  their  affections  for 
each  other  in  order  that  they  might  transact  the  business  of  the  council  in  friend- 
ship and  unity.  They  then  reseated  themselves  each  upon  his  own  robe.  After 
this  the  master  of  the  ceremonies  again  rising  to  his  feet,  filled  and  lighted  the 
pipe  of  peace  from  his  own  fire.  Drawing  three  whiffs,  one  after  the  other,  he 
blew  the  first  toward  the  zenith,  the  second  toward  the  ground,  and  the  third 
toward  the  sun.  By  the  first  act  he  returned  thanks  to  the  Great  Spirit  for  the 
preservation  of  his  life  during  the  past  year,  and  for  being  permitted  to  be  present 
at  this  council.  By  the  second,  he  returned  thanks  to  his  Mother,  the  Earth,  for 
her  various  productions  which  had  ministered  to  his  sustenance.     And  by  the 


1 3  8  A  NCI  EN  T  SOLVE  T  Y. 

When  the  sachems  met  in  council,  at  the  time  and  place  ap- 
pointed, and  the  usual  reception  ceremony  had  been  performed, 
they  arranged  themselves  in  two  divisions  and  seated  them- 
selves upon  opposite  sides  of  the  council-fire.  Upon  one  side 
were  the  Mohawk,  Onondaga  and  Seneca  sachems.  The  tribes 
they  represented  were,  when  in  council,  brother  tribes  to  each 
other  and  father  tribes  to  the  other  two.  In  like  manner  their 
sachems  were  brothers  to  each  other  and  fathers  to  those  oppo- 
site. They  constituted  a  phratry  of  tribes  and  of  sachems,  by 
an  extension  of  the  principle  which  united  gentes  in  a  phratry. 
On  the  opposite  side  of  the  fire  were  the  Oneida  and  Cayuga, 
and,  at  a  later  day,  the  Tuscarora  sachems.  The  tribes  they 
represented  were  brother  tribes  to  each  other,  and  son  tribes  to 
the  opposite  three.  Their  sachems  also  were  brothers  to  each 
other,  and  sons  of  those  in  the  opposite  division.  They  formed 
a  second  tribal  phratry.  As  the  Oneidas  were  a  subdivision 
of  the  Mohawks,  and  the  Cayugas  a  subdivision  of  the  Onon- 
dagas  or  Senecas,  they  were  in  reality  junior  tribes;  whence 
their  relation  of  seniors  and  juniors,  and  the  application  of  the 
phratric  principle.  When  the  tribes  are  named  in  council  the 
Mohawks  by  precedence  are  mentioned  first.  Their  tribal  epi- 
thet was  "The  Shield  "  [Da-gd-c-o'-da).  The  Onondagas  came 
next  under  the  epithet  of  "Name-Bearer"  [Ho-de-san-no'-ge- 
td),  because  they  had  been  appointed  to  select  and  name  the  fifty 
original  sachems.^  Next  in  the  order  of  precedence  were  the 
Senecas,  under  the  epithet  of  "Door-Keeper"  {^Ho-nan-ne-hd - 
out).  They  were  made  perpetual  keepers  of  the  western  door 
of  the  Long  House.  The  Oneidas,  under  the  epithet  of  "  Great 
Tree  "  {Nc-ad -de-on-dar' -go-wai'),  and  the  Cayugas,  under  that 

third,  he  returned  thanks  to  the  Sun  for  his  never-faiHng  light,  ever  shining  upon 
alL  These  words  were  not  repeated,  but  such  is  the  purport  of  the  acts  them- 
selves. He  then  passed  tlie  pipe  to  the  first  upon  his  right  toward  the  north,  who 
repeated  tlie  same  ceremonies,  and  then  passed  it  to  the  next,  and  so  on  around 
the  burning  circle.  The  ceremony  of  smoking  the  calumet  also  signified  that  they 
pledged  to  each  other  their  faith,  their  friendship,  and  their  honor. 

These  ceremonies  completed  the  opening  of  the  council,  which  was  then  de- 
clared to  be  ready  for  the  business  upon  which  it  had  been  convened. 

1  Tradition  declares  that  the  Onondagas  deputed  a  wise-man  to  visit  the  terri- 
tories of  the  tribes  and  select  and  name  the  new  sachems  as  circumstances  should 
prompt :  whicli  explains  the  unequal  distribution  of  the  office  among  the  several 
gentes. 


THE  IROQUOIS  CONFEDERACY. 


139 


of  "Great  Pipe  "  [So-nus'-ho-gwar-to-zvar),  were  named  fourth 
and  fifth.  The  Tuscaroras,  who  came  late  into  the  confederacy, 
were  named  last,  and  had  no  distinguishing  epithet.  Forms, 
such  as  these,  were  more  important  in  ancient  society  than  we 
would  be  apt  to  suppose. 

It  was  customary  for  the  foreign  tribe  to  be  represented  at 
the  council  by  a  delegation  of  wise-men  and  chiefs,  who  bore 
their  proposition  and  presented  it  in  person.  After  the  council 
was  formally  opened  and  the  delegation  introduced,  one  of  the 
sachems  made  a  short  address,  in  the  course  of  which  he 
thanked  the  Great  Spirit  for  sparing  their  lives  and  permitting 
them  to  meet  together;  after  which  he  informed  the  delegation 
that  the  council  was  prepared  to  hear  them  upon  the  affair  for 
which  it  had  convened.  One  of  the  delegates  then  submitted 
their  proposition  in  form,  and  sustained  it  by  such  arguments 
as  he  was  able  to  make.  Careful  attention  was  given  by  the 
members  of  the  council  that  they  might  clearly  comprehend 
the  matter  in  hand.  After  the  address  was  concluded,  the  del- 
egation withdrew  from  the  council  to  await  at  a  distance  the 
result  of  its  deliberations.  It  then  became  the  duty  of  the  sa- 
chems to  agree  upon  an  answer,  which  Avas  reached  through 
the  ordinary  routine  of  debate  and  consultation.  When  a  de- 
cision had  been  made,  a  speaker  was  appointed  to  communi- 
cate the  answer  of  the  council,  to  receive  which  the  delegation 
were  recalled.  The  speaker  was  usually  chosen  from  the  tribe 
at  whose  instance  the  council  had  been  convened.  It  was  cus- 
tomary for  him  to  review  the  whole  subject  in  a  formal  speech, 
in  the  course  of  which  the  acceptance,  in  whole  or  in  part,  or 
the  rejection  of  the  proposition  were  announced  with  the  rea- 
sons therefor.  Where  an  agreement  was  entered  upon,  belts 
of  wampum  were  exchanged  as  evidence  of  its  terms.  With 
these  proceedings  the  council  terminated. 

"This  belt  preserves  my  words"  was  a  common  remark  of 
an  Iroquois  chief  in  council.  He  then  delivered  the  belt  as  the 
evidence  of  what  he  had  said.  Several  such  belts  would  be 
given  in  the  course  of  a  negotiation  to  the  opposite  party.  In 
the  reply  of  the  latter  a  belt  would  be  returned  for  each  prop- 
osition accepted.     The  Iroquois  experienced  the  necessity  for 


I40  ANCIENT  SOCIETY. 

an  exact  record  of  some  kind  of  a  proposition  involving  their 
faith  and  honor  in  its  execution,  and  they  devised  this  method 
to  place  it  beyond  dispute. 

Unanimity  among  the  sachems  was  required  upon  all  pubHc 
questions,  and  essential  to  the  validity  of  every  public  act.  It 
was  a  fundamental  law  of  the  confederacy.^  They  adopted  a 
method  for  ascertaining  the  opinions  of  the  members  of  the 
council  which  dispensed  with  the  necessity  of  casting  votes. 
Moreover,  they  were  entirely  unacquainted  with  the  principle 
of  majorities  and  minorities  in  the  action  of  councils.  They 
voted  in  council  by  tribes,  and  the  sachems  of  each  tribe  were 
required  to  be  of  one  mind  to  form  a  decision.  Recognizing 
unanimity  as  a  necessary  principle,  the  founders  of  the  confed- 
eracy divided  the  sachems  of  each  tribe  into  classes  as  a  means 
for  its  attainment.  This  will  be  seen  by  consulting  the  table, 
{supra  p.  1 30).  No  sachem  was  allowed  to  express  an  opinion 
in  council  in  the  nature  of  a  vote  until  he  had  first  agreed  with 
the  sachem  or  sachems  of  his  class  upon  the  opinion  to  be  ex- 
pressed, and  had  been  appointed  to  act  as  speaker  for  the  class. 
Thus  the  eight  Seneca  sachems  being  in  four  classes  could  have 
but  four  opinions,  and  the  ten  Cayuga  sachems,  being  in  the 
same  number  of  classes,  could  have  but  four.  In  this  manner 
the  sachems  in  each  class  were  first  brought  to  unanimity 
among  themselves.  A  cross-consultation  was  then  held  be- 
tween the  four  sachems  appointed  to  speak  for  the  four  classes; 
and  when  they  had  agreed,  they  designated  one  of  their  num- 
ber to  express  their  resulting  opinion,  which  was  the  answer  of 
their  tribe.  When  the  sachems  of  the  several  tribes  had,  by 
this  ingenious  method,  become  of  one  mind  separately,  it  re- 
mained to  compare  their  several  opinions,  and  if  they  agreed 
the  decision  of  the  council  was  made.      If  they  failed  of  agree- 

'  At  the  beginning  of  tlie  American  revolution  the  Iroquois  were  unable  to  agree 
upon  a  declaration  of  war  against  our  confederacy  for  want  of  unanimity  in  council. 
A  number  of  the  Oneida  sachems  resisted  the  proposition  and  finally  refused  their 
consent.  As  neutrality  was  impossible  with  the  Mohawks,  and  the  Senecas  were 
determined  to  fight,  it  was  resolved  that  each  tribe  might  engage  in  the  war  upon 
its  own  responsibility,  or  remain  neutral.  The  war  against  the  Eries,  against  the 
Neutral  Nation  and  Susquehannocks,  and  the  several  wars  against  the  French, 
were  resolved  upon  in  general  council.  Our  colonial  records  are  largely  filled  with 
negotiations  with  the  Iroquois  Confederacy. 


THE  IROQUOIS  CONFEDERACY. 


141 


ment  the  measure  was  defeated,  and  the  council  was  at  an  end. 
The  five  persons  appointed  to  express  the  decision  of  the  five 
tribes  may  possibly  explain  the  appointment  and  the  functions 
of  the  six  electors,  so  called,  in  the  Aztec  confederacy,  which 
will  be  noticed  elsewhere. 

By  this  method  of  gaining  assent  the  equality  and  independ- 
ence of  the  several  tribes  were  recognized  and  preserved.  If 
any  sachem  was  obdurate  or  unreasonable,  influences  were 
brought  to  bear  upon  him,  through  the  preponderating  senti- 
ment, which  he  could  not  well  resist ;  so  that  it  seldom  hap- 
pened that  inconvenience  or  detriment  resulted  from  their  ad- 
herence to  the  rule.  Whenever  all  efforts  to  procure  unanimity 
had  failed,  the  whole  matter  was  laid  aside  because  further 
action  had  become  impossible. 

The  induction  of  new  sachems  into  office  was  an  event  of 
great  interest  to  the  people,  and  not  less  to  the  sachems  who 
retained  thereby  some  control  over  the  introduction  of  new 
members  into  their  body.  To  perform  the  ceremony  of  raising 
•up  sachems  the  general  council  was  primarily  instituted.  It 
was  named  at  the  time,  or  came  afterwards  to  be  called,  the 
Mourning  Council  {Hen-7inn-do-im]i' -scJt),  because  it  embraced 
the  twofold  object  of  lamenting  the  death  of  the  departed 
sachems  and  of  installing  his  successor.  Upon  the  death  of  a 
sachem,  the  tribe  in  which  the  loss  had  occurred  had  power  to 
summon  a  general  council,  and  to  name  the  time  and  place  of 
its  meeting.  A  herald  was  sent  out  with  a  belt  of  wampum, 
usually  the  official  belt  of  the  deceased  sachem  given  to  him  at 
his  installation,  which  conveyed  this  laconic  message; — "the 
name"  (mentioning  that  of  the  late  ruler)  "calls  for  a  council." 
It  also  announced  the  day  and  place  of  convocation.  In  some 
cases  the  official  belt  of  the  sachem  was  sent  to  the  central 
council-fire  at  Onondaga  immediately  after  his  burial,  as  a 
notification  of  his  demise,  and  the  time  for  holding  the  council 
was  determined  afterwards. 

The  Mourning  Council,  with  the  festivities  which  followed 
the  investiture  of  sachems  possessed  remarkable  attractions  for 
the  Iroquois.  They  flocked  to  its  attendance  from  the  most 
distant  localities  with  zeal  and  enthusiasm.      It  was  opened  and 


142 


'ANCIENT  SOCIETY. 


conducted  with  many  forms  and  ceremonies,  and  usually  lasted 
five  days.  The  first  was  devoted  to  the  prescribed  ceremony 
of  lamentations  for  the  deceased  sachem,  which,  as  a  religious 
act,  commenced  at  the  rising  of  the  sun.  At  this  time  the 
sachems  of  the  tribe,  with  whom  the  council  was  held,  march- 
ed out  followed  by  their  tribesmen,  to  receive  formally  the 
sachems  and  people  of  the  other  tribes,  who  had  arrived  before 
and  remained  encamped  at  some  distance  waiting  for  the  ap- 
pointed day.  After  exchanging  greetings,  a  procession  was 
formed  and  the  lament  was  chanted  in  verse,  with  responses, 
by  the  united  tribes,  as  they  marched  from  the  place  of  recep- 
tion to  the  place  of  council.  The  lament,  with  the  responses  in 
chorus,  was  a  tribute  of  respect  to  the  memory  of  the  departed 
sachem,  in  which  not  only  his  gens,  but  his  tribe,  and  the  con- 
federacy itself  participated.  It  was  certainly  a  more  delicate 
testimonial  of  respect  and  affection  than  would  have  been  ex- 
pected from  a  barbarous  people.  This  ceremonial,  wath  the 
opening  of  the  council,  concluded  the  first  day's  proceedings. 
On  the  second  day,  the  installation  ceremony  commenced,  and 
it  usually  lasted  into  the  fourth.  The  sachems  of  the  several 
tribes  seated  themselves  in  two  divisions,  as  at  the  civil  council. 
When  the  sachem  to  be  raised  up  belonged  to  either  of  the 
three  senior  tribes  the  ceremony  was  performed  by  the  sachems 
of  the  junior  tribes,  and  the  new  sachem  was  installed  as  a 
father.  In  like  manner,  if  he  belonged  to  either  of  the  three 
junior  tribes  the  ceremony  was  performed  by  the  sachems  of 
the  senior  tribes,  and  the  new  sachem  was  installed  as  a  son. 
These  special  circumstances  are  mentioned  to  show  the  peculiar 
character  of  their  social  and  governmental  life.  To  the  Iroquois 
these  forms  and  figures  of  speech  were  full  of  significance. 

Among  other  things,  the  ancient  wampum  belts,  into 
which  the  structure  and  principles  of  the  confederacy  "had 
been  talked,"  to  use  their  expression,  were  produced  and  read 
or  interpreted  for  the  instruction  of  the  newly  inducted  sachem. 
A  wise-man,  not  necessarily  one  of  the  sachems,  took  these 
belts  one  after  the  other  and  walking  to  and  fro  between  the 
two  divisions  of  sachems,  read  from  them  the  facts  which  they 
j  recorded.     According  to  the  Indian  conception,  these  belts  can 


THE  IROQ  UOIS  CON  FED  ERA  CY.  143 

tell,  by  means  of  an  Interpreter,  the  exact  rule,  provision  or 
transaction  talked  into  them  at  the  time,  and  of  which  they 
were  the  exclusive  record.  A  strand  of  wampum  consisting  of 
strings  of  purple  and  white  shell  beads,  or  a  belt  woven  with 
figures  formed  by  beads  of  different  colors,  operated  on  the  prin- 
ciple of  associating  a  particular  fact  with  a  particular  string  or  fig^- 
ure;  thus  giving  a  serial  arrangement  to  the  facts  as  well  as  fidelity 
to  the  memory.  These  strands  and  belts  of  wampum  were  the 
only  visible  records  of  the  Iroquois;  but  they  required  those 
trained  interpreters  who  could  draw  from  their  strings  and  fig- 
ures the  records  locked  up  in  their  remembrance.  One  of  the 
Onondaga  sachems  (Ho-no-we-na'-to)  was  made  "Keeper  of 
the  Wampum,"  and  two  aids  w^ere  raised  up  with  him  who  were 
required  to  be  versed  in  its  interpretation  as  well  as  the  sa- 
chem. The  interpretation  of  these  several  belts  and  strings 
brought  out,  in  the  address  of  the  wise-man,  a  connected  ac- 
count of  the  occurrences  at  the -formation  of  the  confederacy. 
The  tradition  was  repeated  in  full,  and  fortified  in  its  essential 
parts  by  reference  to  the  record  contained  in  these  belts.  Thus 
the  council  to  raise  up  sachems  became  a  teaching  council, 
which  maintained  in  perpetual  freshness  in  the  minds  of  the 
Iroquois  the  structure  and  principles  of  the  confederacy,  as  well 
as  the  history  of  its  formation.  These  proceedings  occupied 
the  council  until  noon  each  day;  the  afternoon  being  devoted 
to  games  and  amusements.  At  twilight  each  day  a  dinner  in 
common  was  served  to  the  entire  body  in  attendance.  It  con- 
sisted of  soup  and  boiled  meat  cooked  near  the  council-house, 
and  served  directly  from  the  kettle  in  wooden  bowls,  trays  and 
ladles.  Grace  was  said  before  the  feast  commenced.  It  was  a 
prolonged  exclamation  by  a  single  person  on  a  high  shrill  note, 
falling  down  in  cadences  into  stillness,  followed  by  a  response 
in  chorus  by  the  people.  The  evenings  were  devoted  to  the 
dance.  With  these  ceremonies,  continued  for  several  days,  and 
with  the  festivities  that  follow^ed,  their  sachems  were  inducted 
into  office. 

By  investing  their  sachems  with  office  through  a  general 
council,  the  framers  of  the  confederacy  had  in  view  the  three- 
fold object  of  a  perpetual  succession  in  the  gens,  the  benefits 


144 


ANCIENT  SOCIETY. 


of  a  free  election  among  its  members,  and  a  final  supervision 
of  the  choice  through  the  ceremony  of  investiture.  To  render 
the  latter  effective  it  should  carry  with  it  the  power  to  reject 
the  nominee.  Whether  the  right  to  invest  was  purely  func- 
tional, or  carried  with  it  the  right  to  exclude,  I  am  unable  to 
state.  No  case  of  rejection  is  mentioned.  The  scheme  adopted 
by  the  Iroquois  to  maintain  a  ruling  body  of  sachems  may 
claim,  in  several  respects,  the  merit  of  originality,  as  well  as  of 
adaptation  to  their  condition.  In  form  an  oligarchy,  taking 
this  term  in  its  best  sense,  it  Avas  yet  a  representative  democ- 
racy of  the  archaic  type.  A  powerful  popular  element  per- 
vaded the  whole  organism  and  influenced  its  action.  It  is  seen 
in  the  right  of  the  gentes  to  elect  and  depose  their  sachems  and 
chiefs,  in  the  right  of  the  people  to  be  heard  in  council  through 
orators  of  their  own  selection,  and  in  the  voluntary  system  in 
the  military  service.  In  this  and  the  next  succeeding  ethnical 
period  democratic  principles  were  the  vital  element  of  gentile 
society. 

The  Iroquois  name  for  a  sachem  [Ho-yai^-na-go' -zvar),  which 
signifies  "a  counselor  of  the  people,"  was  singularly  appropri- 
ate to  a  ruler  in  a  species  of  free  democracy.  It  not  only  de- 
fines the  office  well,  but  it  also  suggests  the  analogous  designa- 
tion of  the  members  of  the  Grecian  council  of  chiefs.  The 
Grecian  chiefs  were  styled  "councilors  of  the  people."^  From 
the  nature  and  tenure  of  the  office  among  the  Iroquois  the  sa- 
chems were  not  masters  ruling  by  independent  right,  but  rep- 
resentatives holding  from  the  gentes  by  free  election.  It  is 
worthy  of  notice  that  an  office  which  originated  in  savagery, 
and  continued  through  the  three  sub-periods  of  barbarism, 
should  reveal  so  much  of  its  archaic  character  among  the  Greeks 
after  the  gentile  organization  had  carried  this  portion  of  the 
human  family  to  the  confines  of  civilization.  It  shows  further 
how  deeply  inwrought  in  the  human  mind  the  principle  of  de- 
mocracy had  become  under  gentilism. 

The  designation  for  a  chief  of  the  second  grade,  Ha-sa-jio- 

•  SoHovvta  xai  do^avT^  aTtayyaXXsiv  //c  XPV 
dr/iuov  7tpo/3ovX(n?  TiJdSs  nad/nsm?  tcoXegoS' 

— .(Eschylus,  T/ie  Seven  against  Thebes,  IO05. 


THE  IROQUOIS  CONFEDERACY.  1 45 

wd'-na,  "an  elevated  name,"  indicates  an  appreciation  by  bar- 
barians of  the  ordinary  motives  for  personal  ambition.      It  also 
reveals  the  sameness  of  the  nature  of  man,  whether  high  up  or 
low  down  upon  the  rounds  of  the  ladder  of  progress.     TheceP" 
~~ebrated  orators,  wise-men,  and  war-chiefs  of  the  Iroquois  were 
chiefs  of   the  second   grade  almost  without  exception.      One 
reason  for  this  may  be  found  in  the  organic  provision  which 
confined  the  duties  of  the  sachem  to  the  affairs  of  peace.     An- 
other may  have  been  to  exclude  from  the  ruling  body  their 
ablest  men,  lest  their  ambitious  aims  should  disturb  its  action. 
As  the  office  of  chief  was  bestowed  in  reward  of  merit,  it  fell 
necessarily  upon  their  ablest  men.      Red-Jacket,  Brandt,  Garan 
gula,  Cornplanter,  Farmer's  Brother,  Frost,  Johnson,  and  other 
M^ell  known  Iroquois,  were  chiefs  as  distinguished  from  sachems 
None  of  the  long  lines  of  sachems  have  become  distinguished 
in  American  annals,  with  the  exception  of  Logan,^  Handsome 
Lake,^  and  at  a  recent  day,  Ely  S.  Parker.^     The  remainder 
have  left  no  remembrance  behind  them  extending  beyond  the  \ 
Iroquois.  "*'  "'"-i    *^ 

At  the  time  the  confederacy  was  formed  To-do-dd'-ho  was 
the  most  prominent  and   influential  of  the  Onondaga  chiefs. 
His  accession  to  the  plan  of  a  confederacy,  in  which  he  would 
experience   a   diminution   of  power,   was   regarded   as   highly 
meritorious.      He  was  raised  up  as  one  of  the  Onondaga  sa- 
chems and  his   name  placed  first   in  the  list.     Two  assistant 
sachems  were  raised  up  with  him  to  act  as  his  aids  and  to 
stand  behind  him  on  public  occasions.     Thus  dignified,  this 
sachemship  has  since  been   regarded  by  the  Iroquois  as  the 
most  illustrious  of  the  forty-eight,  from  the  services  rendered 
by  the  first  To-do-dd'-ho.     The  circumstance  was  early  seized 
upon  by  the  inquisitive  colonists  to  advance  the  person  who 
held  this  office  to  the  position  of  king  of  the  Iroquois;  but  the       \ 
misconception  was  refuted,  and  the  institutions  of  the  Iroquois         ■> 
were  relieved  of  the  burden  of  an  impossible  feature.      In  the\\,l; 
general  council  he  sat  among  his  equals.     The  confederacy  had  \     ' 
no  chief  executive  magistrate.  »   A/ 


'  One  of  the  Cayuga  sachems.  ^^  ■  ij 

*  One  of  the  Seneca  sachems,  and  the  founder  of  the  New  ReHgion  of  the^  .l\ 
Iroquois.  3  Qne  of  the  Seneca  "sachems,     ri 


146  ANCIENT  SOCIETY. 

Under  a  confederacy  of  tribes  the  office  of  general,  (Hos-gd- 
d-geJt! -da-go-wd)  "  Great  War  Soldier,"  makes  its  first  ap- 
pearance. Cases  would  now  arise  when  the  several  tribes  in 
their  confederate  capacity  would  be  engaged  in  war;  and  the 
necessity  for  a  general  commander  to  direct  the  movements  of 
the  united  bands  would  be  felt.  The  introduction  of  this  office 
as  a  permanent  feature  in  the  government  was  a  great  event  in 
the  history  of  human  progress.  It  was  the  beginning  of  a  dif- 
ferentiation of  the  military  from  the  civil  power,  which,  when 
completed,  changed  essentially  the  external  manifestation  of 
the  government.  But  even  in  later  stages  of  progress,  when 
the  military  spirit  predominated,  the  essential  character  of  the 
government  was  not  changed.  Gentilism  arrested  usurpation. 
With  the  rise  of  the  office  of  general,  the  government  was 
gradually  changed  from  a  government  of  one  power,  into  a 
government  of  two  powers.  The  functions  of  government 
became,  in  course  of  time,  co-ordinated  between  the  two. 
This  new  office  was  the  germ  of  that  of  a  chief  executive  mag- 
istrate; for  out  of  the  general  came  the  king,  the  emperor,  and 
the  president,  as  elsewhere  suggested.  The  office  sprang  from 
the  military  necessities  of  society,  and  had  a  logical  develop- 
ment. For  this  reason  its  first  appearance  and  subsequent 
growth  have  an  important  place  in  this  discussion.  In  the  course 
'of  this  volume  I  shall  attempt  to  trace  the  progressive  develop- 
ment of  this  office,  from  the  Great  War  Soldier  of  the  Iroquois 
through  the  Teitctli  of  the  Aztecs,  to  the  Basileus  of  the  Gre- 
cian, and  the  Rex  of  the  Roman  tribes;  am.ong  all  of  whom, 
through  three  successive  ethnical  periods,  the  office  was  the 
same,  namely,  that  of  a  general  in  a  military  democracy. 
Among  the  Iroquois,  the  Aztecs,  and  the  Romans  the  office 
was  elective,  or  confirmative,  by  a  constituency.  Presumptive- 
ly, it  was  the  same  among  the  Greeks  of  the  traditionary 
period.  It  is  claimed  that  the  office  of  basilcits  among  the 
Grecian  tribes  in  the  Homeric  period  was  hereditary  from 
father  to  son.  This  is  at-lea^tdoubtful.  It  is  such  a  wide  and 
total  departure  from  the  original  tenure  of  the  office  as  to  re- 
quire positive  evidence  to  establish  the  fact.  An  election,  or 
confirmation  by  a  constituency,  would  still  be  necessary  under 


THE  IROQUOIS  CONFEDERACY.  147 

gentile  institutions.  If  in  numerous  instances  it  were  known 
that  the  office  had  passed  from  father  to  son  this  might  have 
suggested  the  inference  of  hereditary  succession,  now  adopted 
as  historically  true,  while  succession  in  this  form  did  not  exist. 
Unfortunately,  an  intimate  knowledge  of  the  organization  and 
usages  of  society  in  the  traditionary  period  is  altogether  want- 
ing. Great  principles  of  human  action  furnish  the  safest  guide 
when  their  operation  must  have  been  necessary.  It  is  far 
more  probable  that  hereditary  succession,  when  it  first  came 
lin,  was  established  by  force,  than  by  the  free  consent  of  the 
people;  and  that  it  did  not  exist  among  the  Grecian  tribes  in 
the  Homeric  period- 


lien  the  Iroquois  confederacy  was  formed,  or  soon  after 
that  event,  two  permanent  war-chiefships  were  created  and 
named,  and  both  were  assigned  to  the  Seneca  tribe.  One  of 
them  ( Ta-wan' -ne-ars,  signifying  needle-breaker)  was  made 
hereditary  in  the  Wolf,  and  the  other  ( So-no' -so-zvd,  signifying 
great  oyster  shell)  in  the  Turtle  gens.  The  reason  assigned 
for  giving  them  both  to  the  Senecas  was  the  greater  danger  of 
attack  at  the  west  end  of  their  territories.  They  were  elected 
in  the  same  manner  as  the  sachems,  were  raised  up  by  a  general 
council,  and  were  equal  in  rank  and  power.  Another  account 
states  that  they  were  created  later.  They  discovered  immedi- 
ately after  the  confederacy  was  formed  that  the  structure  of  the 
Long  House  was  incomplete  because  there  were  no  officers  to 
execute  the  military  commands  of  the  confederacy.  A  council 
was  convened  to  remedy  the  omission,  which  established  the 
two  perpetual  war-chiefs  named.  As  general  commanders 
they  had  charge  of  the  military  affairs  of  the  confederacy,  and 
the  command  of  its  joint  forces  when  united  in  a  general  expe- 
dition. Governor  Blacksnake,  recently  deceased,  held  the 
office  first  named,  thus  showing  that  the  succession  has  been 
regularly  maintained.  The  creation  of  two  principal  war-chiefs 
instead  of  one,  and  with  equal  powers,  argues  a  subtle  and  cal- 
culating policy  to  prevent  the  domination  of  a  single  man  even 
|in  their  military  affairs.  They'did  without  experience  precisely 
as  the  Romans  did  in  creating  two  consuls  instead  of  one, 
after  they  had  abolished  the  office  of  rex.     Two  consuls  would 


148  ANCIENT  SOCIETY. 

balance  the  military  power  between  them,  and  prevent  either 
from  becoming  supreme.  Among  the  Iroquois  this  office 
never  became  influential. 

In  Indian  Ethnography  the  subjects  of  primary  importance 
are  the  gens,  phratry,  tribe  and  confederacy.  They  exhibit  the 
organization  of  society.  Next  to  these  are  the  tenure  and 
functions  of  the  office  of  sachem  and  chief,  the  functions  of  the 
council  of  chiefs,  and  the  tenure  and  functions  of  the  office  of 
principal  war-chief  When  these  are  ascertained,  the  structure 
and  principles  of  their  governmental  system  will  be  known.  A 
knowledge  of  their  usages  and  customs,  of  their  arts  and  inven- 
tions, and  of  their  plan  of  life  will  then  fill  out  the  picture.  In 
the  work  of  American  investigators  too  little  attention  has  been 
given  to  the  former.  They  still  afford  a  rich  field  in  which 
much  information  may  be  gathered.  Our  knowledge,  which 
is  now  general,  should  be  made  minute  and  comparative.  The 
Indian  tribes  in  the  Lower,  and  in  the  Middle  Status  of  barba- 
rism, represent  two  of  the  great  stages  of  progress  from  savagery 
to  civilization.  Our  own  remote  forefathers  passed  through 
the  same  conditions,  one  after  the  other,  and  possessed,  there 
can  scarcely  be  a  doubt,  the  same,  or  very  similar  institutions, 
with  many  of  the  same  usages  and  customs.  However  little 
we  may  be  interested  in  the  American  Indians  personally, 
their  experience  touches  us  more  nearly,  as  an  exemplification 
of  the  experience  of  our  own  ancestors.  Our  primary  institu- 
tions root  themselves  in  a  prior  gentile  society  in  which  the 
gens,  phratry  and  tribe  were  the  organic  series,  and  in  which  the 
council  of  chiefs  was  the  instrument  of  government.  The  phe- 
nomena of  their  ancient  society  must  have  presented  many 
points  in  common  with  that  of  the  Iroquois  and  other  Indian 
tribes.  This  view  of  the  matter  lends  an  additional  interest  to 
the  comparative  institutions  of  mankind. 

The  Iroquois  confederacy  is  an  excellent  exemplification  of 
a  gentile  society  under  this  form  of  organization.  It  seems  to 
realize  all  the  capabilities  of  gentile  institutions  in  the  Lower 
Status  of  barbarism;  leaving  an  opportunity  for  further  develop- 
ment, but  no  subsequent  plan  of  government  until  the  institu- 
tions of  political  society,  founded  upon  territory  and  upon  prop- 


THE  IROQ UOIS  CONFEDERACY.  1 49 

erty,  with  the  establishment  of  which  the  gentile  organization 
would  be  overthrown.  The  intermediate  stages  were  transi- 
tional, remaining  military  democracies  to  the  end,  except  where 
tyrannies  founded  upon  usurpation  were  temporarily  established 
in  their  places.  The  confederacy  of  the  Iroquois  was  essentially 
democratical;  because  it  was  composed  of  gentes  each  of  which 
was  organized  upon  the  common  principles  of  democracy,  not 
of  the  highest  but  of  the  primitive  type,  and  because  the  tribes 
reserved  the  right  of  local  self-government.  They  conquered 
other  tribes  and  held  them  in  subjection,  as  for  example  the 
Delawares;  but  the  latter  remained  under  the  government  of 
their  own  chiefs,  and  added  nothing  to  the  strength  of  the  con- 
federacy. It  was  impossible  in  this  state  of  society  to  unite 
tribes  under  one  government  who  spoke  different  languages,  or 
to  hold  conquered  tribes  under  tribute  with  any  benefit  but  the 
tribute. 

This  exposition  of  the  Iroquois  confederacy  is  far  from  ex- 
haustive of  the  facts,  but  it  has  been  carried  far  enough  to  an- 
swer my  present  object.  The  Iroquois  were  a  viggixma^ajjd 
intelligent  people,  with  a  brain  approaching  in  volume  the 
Aryaiwv'erage.  Eloquent  in  oratory,  vindictive  in  warTarid 
iiidomitablg_jn  perseverance,  they  have^ainM~a-placeTn'1iis- 
tqry.  If  their  military  achievements  are  dreary  with  the  atroc- 
ities of  savage  warfare,  they  have  illustrated  some  of  the  high- 
est virtues  of  mankind  in  their  relations  with  each  other.  The 
jconfederacy  which  they  organized  must  be  regarded  as  a  re- 
jmarkable  production  of  wisdom  and  sagacity.  One  of  its 
avowed  objects  was  peace ;  to  remove  the  cause  of  strife  by 
uniting  their  tribes  under  one  government,  and  then  extending 
it  by  incorporating  other  tribes  of  the  same  name  and  lineage. 
They  urged  the  Eries  and  the  Neutral  Nation  to  become  mem- 
bers of  the  confederacy,  and  for  their  refusal  expelled  them 
ffrorn  their  borders.  Such  an  insight  into  the  highest  objects 
of  government  is  creditable  to  their  intelligence.  Their  num- 
bers were  small,  but  they  counted  in  their  ranks  a  large  number 
of  able  men.     This  proves  the  high  grade  of  the  stock. 

From  their  position  and  military  strength  they  exercised  a 
marked  influence  upon  the  course  of  events  between  the  En- 


I50  ANCIENT  SOCIETY. 

glish  and  the  French  in  their  competition  for  supremacy  in 
North  America.  As  the  two  were  nearly  equal  in  power  and 
resources  during  the  first  century  of  colonization,  the  French 
may  ascribe  to  the  Iroquois,  in  no  small  degree,  the  overthrow 
of  their  plans  of  empire  in  the  New  World. 

With  a  knowledge  of  the  gens  in  its  archaic  form  and  of  its 
capabilities  as  the  unit  of  a  social  system,  we  shall  be  better  able 
to  understand  the  gentes  of  the  Greeks  and  Romans  yet  to  be 
considered.  The  same  scheme  of  government  composed  of 
gentes,  phratries  and  tribes  in  a  gentile  society  will  be  found 
among  them  as  they  stood  at  the  threshold  of  civilization,  with 
the  superadded  experience  of  two  entire  ethnical  periods. 
Descent  among  them  was  in  the  male  line,  property  was  in- 
herited by  the  children  of  the  owner  instead  of  the  agnatic 
kindred,  and  the  family  was  now  assuming  the  monogamian 
form.  The  growth  of  property,  now  becoming  a  commanding 
element,  and  the  increase  of  numbers  gathered  in  walled  cities 
were  slowly  demonstrating  the  necessity  for  the  second  great 
plan  of  government — the  political.  The  old  gentile  system 
was  becoming  incapable  of  meeting  the  requirements  of  society 
as  it  approached  civilization.  Glimpses  of  a  state,  founded 
upon  territory  and  property,  were  breaking  upon  the  Grecian 
and  Roman  minds  before  which  gentes  and  tribes  were  to  dis- 
appear. To  enter  upon  the  second  plan  of  government,  it  was 
necessary  to  supersede  the  gentes  by  townships  and  city  wards 
— the  gentile  by  a  territorial  system.  The  going  down  of  the 
gentes  and  the  uprising  of  organized  townships  mark  the  divid- 
ing line,  pretty  nearly,  between  the  barbarian  and  the  civiHzed 
worlds — between  ancient  and  modern  society. 


CHAPTER  VI. 

GENTES  IN  OTHER  TRIBES  OF  THE  GANOWA'NIAN  FAMILY.] 

Divisions  of  American  Aborigines. — Gentes  in  Indian  Tribes;  with 
THEIR  Rules  of  Descent  and  Inheritance. — I.  Hodenosaunian  Tribes. — 
II.  Dakotian. — III.  Gulf. — IV.  Pawnee. — V.  Algonkin. — VI.  Athapasco- 
Apache. — VII.  Tribes  of  Northwest  Coast. — Eskimos,  a  Distinct  Family. 
— VIII.  Salish,  Sahaptin,  and  Kootenay  Tribes. — IX.  Shoshonee. — X. 
Village  Indians  of  New  Mexico,  Mexico  and  Central  America. — XI. 
South  American  Indian  Tribes. — Probable  Universality  of  the  Organi- 
zation in  Gentes  in  the  Ganowa'nian  Family. 

When  America  was  first  discovered  in  its  several  regions,  the 
Aborigines  were  found  in  two  dissimilar  conditions.  First 
were  the  Village  Indians,  who  depended  almost  exclusively 
upon  horticulture  for  subsistence;  such  were  the  tribes  in  this 
status  in  New  Mexico,  Mexico  and  Central  America,  and  upon 
the  plateau  of  the  Andes.  Second,  were  the  Non-horticultural 
Indians,  who  depended  upon  fish,  bread-roots  and  game; 
such  were  the  Indians  of  the  Valley  of  the  Columbia,  of  the 
Hudson's  Bay  Territory,  of  parts  of  Canada,  and  of  some  other 
sections  of  America.  Between  these  tribes,  and  connecting  the 
extremes  by  insensible  gradations,  were  the  partially  Village, 
and  partially  Horticultural  Indians;  such  were  the  Iroquois,  the 
New  England  and  Virginia  Indians,  the  Creeks,  Choctas,  Cher- 
okees,  Minnitarees,  Dakotas  and  Shawnees.  The  weapons, 
arts,  usages,  inventions,  dances,  house  architecture,  form  of 
government,  and  plan  of  life  of  all  alike  bear  the  impress  of  a 
common  mind,  and  reveal,  through  their  wide  range,  the  suc- 
cessive stages  of  development  of  the  same  original  conceptions. 


/ 


1 5 2  ANCIENT  SOCIETY. 

Our  first  mistake  consisted  in  overrating  the  comparative  ad- 
vancement of  the  Village  Indians;  and  our  second  in  under- 
rating that  of  the  Non-horticultural,  and  of  the  partially  Vil- 
lage Indians:  whence  resulted  a  third,  that  of  separating  one 
from  the  other  and  regarding  them  as  different  races.  There 
was  a  marked  difference  in  the  conditions  in  which  they  were 
severally  found;  for  a  number  of  the  Non-horticultural  tribes 
were  in  the  Uj^per  Status  of  savagery;  the  intermediate  tribes 
were  in  the  Lower  Status  of  barbarism,  and  the  Village  Indians 
were  in  the  Middle  Status.  The  evidence  of  their  unity  of  or- 
igin has  now  accumulated  to  such  a  degree  as  to  leave  no  rea- 
sonable doubt  upon  the  question,  although  this  conclusion  is  not 
universally  accepted.  The  Eskimos  belong  to  a  different  fam- 
ily. 

In  a  previous  work  I  presented  the  system  of  consanguin- 
ity and  affinity  of  some  seventy  American  Indian  tribes;  and 
upon  the  fact  of  their  joint  possession  of  the  same  system,  with 
evidence  of  its  derivation  from  a  common  source,  ventured  to 
claim  for  them  the  distinctive  rank  of  a  family  of  mankind,  un- 
der the  name  of  the  Ganowanian,  the  "Family  of  the  Bow  and 
Arrow.  "^  '^      " 

Having  considered  the  attributes  of  the  gens  in  its  archaic 
form,  it  remains  to  indicate  the  extent  of  its  prevalence  in  the 
tribes  of  the  Ganowanian  family.  In  this  chapter  the  organi- 
zation will  be  traced  among  them,  confining  the  statements  to 
the  names  of  the  gentes  in  each  tribe,  with  their  rules  of  de- 
scent and  inheritance  as  to  property  and  office.  I'urther  ex- 
planations will  be  added  when  necessary.  The  main  point  to 
be  established  is  the  existence  or  non-existence  of  the  gentile 
organization  among  them.  Wherever  the  institution  has  been 
found  in  these  several  tribes  it  is  the  same  in  all  essential  re- 
spects as  the  gens  of  the  Iroquois,  and  therefore  needs  no  fur- 
ther exposition  in  this  connection.  Unless  the  contrary  is 
stated,  it  may  be  understood  that  the  existence  of  the  organi- 
zation was  ascertained  by  the  author  from  the  Indian  tribe  or 
some  of  its  members.  The  classification  of  tribes  follows  that 
adopted  in  "Systems  of  Consanguinity." 

'  Systems  of  Consanguinity  and  Affinity  of  the  Human  Faniily.     {Smithsonian 
Contributions  to  Knowledge,  vol.  xvii,  1871,  p.  131.) 


GENTES  IN  OTHER  TRIBES.  1 53 

I.  Hodenosaunian  Tribes. 

1.  Iroquois.     The  gentes  of  the  Iroquois  have  been  consid- 
ered.^ 

2.  Wyandotes.     This  tribe,  the  remains  of  the  ancient  Hu- 
rons,  is  composed  of  eight  gentes,  as  follows: 

I,  Wolf  2.   Bear.  3.  Beaver.  4.  Turtle. 

5.  Deer.  6.  Snake.  7.  Porcupine.  8.  Hawk.^ 
Descent  is  in  the  female  line,  with  marriage  in  the  gens  pro- 
hibited. The  office  of  sachem,  or  civil  chief,  is  hereditary  in 
the  gens,  but  elective  among  its  members.  They  have  seven 
sachems  and  seven  war-chiefs,  the  Hawk  gens  being  now  ex- 
tinct. The  office  of  sachem  passes  from  brother  to  brother,  or 
from  uncle  to  nephew;  but  that  of  war-chief  was  bestowed  in 
reward  of  merit,  and  was  not  hereditary.  Property  was  he- 
reditary in  the  gens,  consequently  children  took  nothing  from 
their  father;  but  they  inherited  their  mother's  effects.  Where 
the  rule  is  stated  hereafter  it  will  be  understood  that  unmar- 
ried as  well  as  married  persons  are  included.  Each  gens  had 
power  to  depose  as  well  as  elect  its  chiefs.  The  Wyandotes 
have  been  separated  from  the  Iroquois  at  least  four  hundred 
years;  but  they  still  have  five  gentes  in  common,  although 
their  names  have  either  changed  beyond  identification,  or  new 
names- have  been  substituted  by  one  or  the  other. 

The  Eries,  Neutral  Nation,  Nottoways,  Tutelos,^  and  Sus- 
quehannocks*  now  extinct  or  absorbed  in  other  tribes,  belong 
to  the  same  Hneage,  Presumptively  they  were  organized  in 
gentes,  but  the  evidence  of  the  fact  is  lost. 

1  I.  Wolf,     Tor-yoh'-ne.  5.  Deer,     Na-o'-geh. 

2.  Bear,      Ne-e-ar-guy'-ee.  6.  Snipe,    Doo-eese-doo-we'. 

3.  Beaver,  Non-gar-ne'-e-ar-goh.  7.   Heron,  Jo-as'-seh. 

4.  Turtle,  Ga-ne-e-ar-teh-go'-\va.         8.  Hawk,  Os-sweh-ga-da-ga'-ah. 
*  I.  Ah-na-rese'-kwa,   Bone  Gnawers.  5-   Os-ken'-o-toh,     Roaming. 

2.  Ah-nu-yeh',  Tree  Liver.  6.   Sine-gain'-see,    Creeping. 

3.  Tso-ta'-ee,  Shy  Animal.  7.  Ya-ra-hats'-see,  Tall  Tree. 

4.  Ge-ah'-wish,  Fine  Land.  8.   Da-soak'  Flying. 

3  Mr.  Horatio  Hale  has  recently  proved  the  connection  of  the  Tutelos  with  the 
Iroquois. 

*  Mr.  Francis  Parkman,  author  of  the  brilliant  series  of  works  on  the  coloniza- 
tion of  America,  was  the  first  to  establish  the  affiliation  of  the  Susquehannocks 
•with  the  Iroquois. 


154  ANCIENT  SOCIETY. 

II.  Dakotian  Tribes. 
A  large  number  of  tribes  are  included  in  this  great  stock  of 
the  American  aborigines.  At  the  time  of  their  discovery  they 
had  fallen  into  a  number  of  groups,  and  their  language  into  a 
number  of  dialects;  but  they  inhabited,  in  the  main,  continuous 
areas.  They  occupied  the  head  waters  of  the  Mississippi,  and 
both  banks  of  the  Missouri  for  more  than  a  thousand  miles  in 
extent.  In  all  probability  the  Iroquois,  and  their  cognate 
tribes,  were  an  offshoot  from  this  stem. 

^i.  Dakotas  or  Sioux.  The  Dakotas,  consisting  at  the  pres- 
ent time  of  some  twelve  independent  tribes,  have  allowed  the 
gentile  organization  to  fall  into  decadence.  It  seems  substan- 
tially certain  that  they  once  possessed  it  because  their  nearest 
congeners,  the  Missouri  tribes,  are  now  thus  organized.  They 
have  societies  named  after  animals  analogous  to  gentes,  but 
the  latter  are  now  wanting.  Carver,  who  was  among  them  in 
1767,  remarks  that  "every  separate  body  of  Indians  is  divided 
into  bands  or  tribes;  which  band  or  tribe  forms  a  little  commu- 
nity with  the  nation  to  which  it  belongs.  As  the  nation  has  some 
particular  symbol  by  which  it  is  distinguished  from  others,  so 
each  tribe  has  a  badge  from  which  it  is  denominated ;  as  that  of 
the  eagle,  the  panther,  the  tiger,  the  buffalo,  etc.  One  band  of 
the  Naudowissies  [Sioux]  is  represented  by  a  Snake,  another  a 
Tortoise,  a  third  a  Squirrel,  a  fourth  a  Wolf,  and  a  fifth  a  Buf- 
falo. Throughout  every  nation  they  particularize  themselves  in 
|J  the  same  manner,  and  the  meanest  person  among  them  will  re- 
■  •  member  his  lineal  descent,  and  distinguish  himself  by  his  re- 
spective family."^  He  visited  the  eastern  Dakotas  on  the  Mis- 
sissippi. From  this  specific  statement  I  see  no  reason  to  doubt 
that  the  gentile  organization  was  then  in  full  vitality  among 
them.  When  I  visited  the  eastern  Dakotas  in  1861,  and  the 
western  in  1862,  I  could  find  no  satisfactory  traces  of  gentes 
among  them.  A  change  in  the  mode  of  life  among  the  Dako- 
tas occurred  between  these  dates  when  they  were  forced  upon 
the  plains,  and  fell  into  nomadic  bands,  which  may,  perhaps, 
explain  the  decadence  of  gentilism  among  them. 

Carver  also   noticed   the   two   grades   of  chiefs   among  the 
1  Travels  in  North  America,  Phila.  ed.,  1796,  p.  164. 


GENTES  IN  OTHER  TRIBES.  1 55 

western  Indians,  which  have  been  explained  as  they  exist 
among  the  Iroquois.  "Every  band,"  he  observes,  "has  a  chief 
who  is  termed  the  Great  Chief,  or  the  Chief  Warrior,  and  who 
is  chosen  in  consideration  of  his  experience  in  war,  and  of  his 
approved  valor,  to  direct  their  military  operations,  and  to  reg- 
ulate all  concerns  belonging  to  that  department.  But  this 
chief  is  not  considered  the  head  of  the  state;  besides  the  great 
warrior  who  is  elected  for  his  warlike  qualifications,  there  is 
another  who  enjoys  a  pre-eminence  as  his  hereditary  right,  and 
has  the  more  immediate  management  of  their  civil  affairs.  This 
chief  might  with  greater  propriety  be  denominated  the  sachem; 
whose  assent  is  necessary  to  all  conveyances  and  treaties,  to 
which  he  affixes  the  mark  of  the  tribe  or  nation."^ 

2^ Missouri  tribes.  I.  Punkas.  This  tribe  is  composed  of 
eight  gentes,  as  follows: 

1.  Grizzly  Bear.    2.  Many  People.    3.  Elk.  4.  Skunk: 
5.  Buffalo.              6.  Snake.                7.  Medicine.   8.  Ice.^ 

In  this  tribe,  contrary  to  the  general  rule,  descent  is  in  the 
male  line,  the  children  belonging  to  the  gens  of  their  father. 
Intermarriage  in  the  gens  is  prohibited.  The  office  of  sachem 
is  hereditary  in  the  gens,  the  choice  being  determined  by  elec- 
tion; but  the  sons  of  a  deceased  sachem  are  eligible.  It  is 
probable  that  the  change  from  the  archaic  form  was  recent, 
from  the  fact  that  among  the  Otoes  and  Missouris,  two  of  the 
eight  Missouri  tribes,  and  also  among  the  Mandans,  descent  is 
still  in  the  female  line.      Property  is  hereditary  in  the  gens. 

2.  Omahas.  This  tribe  is  composed  of  the  following  twelve 
gentes: 

I.  Deer.  2.  Black.        3.  Bird.  4.  Turtle. 

5.  Buffalo.      6.  Bear.         7.  Medicine.       8.  Kaw. 
9.  Head.       10.  Red.        11.  Thunder.      12.  Many  Seasons.' 
Descent,  inheritance,  and  the  law  of  marriage  are  the  same 
as  among  the  Punkas. 

1  Travels  in  North  America,  p.  165. 
*  I.  Wa-sii'-be.       2.   De-a-glie'-ta. 

5.  Wa-sha'-ba.    6.  Wa-zhii'-zha. 
3  I.  Wa'-zhese-ta.  2.   Ink-ka'-sa-ba. 

5.  Da-thun'-da.   6.  Wa-sa'-ba. 

9.  Ta'-pa.  10.  In-gra'-zhe-da. 


3- 

Na-ko-poz'' 

-na. 

4- 

Moh-kuh'. 

7- 

Noli'-ga. 

8. 

Wah'ga. 

3- 

La'-ta-da. 

4- 

Ka'-ih. 

7- 

Hun'-ga. 

8. 

Kun'za.          [K 

II. 

Ish-da'-sun 

-da. 

12. 

O-non-e'-ka-ga- 

156  ANCIENT  SOCIETY. 

3.  lowas.  In  like  manner  the  lowas  have  eight  gentes,  as 
follows: 

I.  Wolf.  2.  Bear.  3.  Cow  Buffalo.       4.  Elk. 

5.  Eagle.        6.  Pigeon.        7.  Snake.  8.  Owl.^ 

A  gens  of  the  Beaver  Pd-kiih'-thd  once  existed  among  the 
lowas  and  Otoes,  but  it  is  now  extinct.  Descent,  inheritance, 
and  the  prohibition  of  intermarriage  in  the  gens  are  the  same 
as  among  the  Punkas. 

4.  Otoes  and  Missouris.  These  tribes  have  coalesced  into 
one,  and  have  the  eight  following  gentes: 

I.  Wolf  2.  Bear.  3.  Cow  Buffalo.       4.  Elk. 

5.  Eagle.        6.  Pigeon.       7.  Snake.  8.  Owl.^ 

Descent  among  the  Otoes  and  Missouris  is  in  the  female 

line,  the  children  belonging  to  the  gens  of  their  mother.     The 

office  of  sachem,  and  property  are  hereditary  in  the  gens,  in 

which  intermarriage  is  prohibited. 

5.  Kaws.  The  Kaws  (Kaw'-za)  have  the  following  fourteen 
gentes: 

I.  Deer.  2.  Bear.  3.  Buffalo.      4.  Eagle  (white). 

5.  Eagle  (black).     6.  Duck.  7.  Elk.  8.  Raccoon. 

9.  Prairie  Wolf.      10.  Turtle.       ii.  Earth.      12.  Deer  Tail. 
13.  Tent.  14.  Thunder.^ 

The  Kaws  are  among  the  wildest  of  the  American  aborig- 
ines, but  are  an  intelligent  and  interesting  people.  Descent, 
inheritance  and  marriage  regulations  among  them  are  the 
same  as  among  the  Punkas.  It  will  be  observed  that  there  are 
two  Eagle  gentes,  and  two  of  the  Deer,  which  afford  a  good 
illustration  of  the  segmentation  of  a  gens;  the  Eagle  gens  hav- 
ing probably  divided  into  two  and  distinguished  themselves  by 

'  I,  Me-je'-ra-ja.    2.  Too-num'-pe.        3.  Ah'-ro-wha.  4.   Ho'-dash. 

5.  Cheh'-he-ta.    6.  Lu'-chih.  7.  Wa-keeh'.  8.   Ma'-kotch. 

li  represents  a  deep  sonant  guttural.  It  is  quite  common  in  tlie  dialects  of  the 
Missouri  tribes,  and  also  in  the  Minnitaree  and  Crow. 

2  I.   Me-je'-ra-ja.  2.  Moon'-cha.  3.  Ah'-ro-wha.  4.  Hoo'-ma. 
5.  Kha'-a.           6.  Lute'-ja.                 7.  Wa'-kii.                  8.   Ma'-kotch. 

3  I.  Ta-we-kii-she'-ga.       2.  Sin'-ja-ye-ga.  3.  Mo-e'-kwe-ah-ha. 
4.  Hu-e'-ya.                     5.  Hun-go-tin'-ga.                  6.  Me-hii-shun'-ga. 
7.  O'-pa.                            8.  Me-ka'.                                 9.  Sho'-ma-koo-sa. 

10.  Do-ha-kel'-ya.  11.  Mo-c'-ka-ne-ka'-she-ga.  12.  Da-sin '-ja-ha-ga. 

13.  Ic'-hii-she.  14.  Lo-ne'-ka-she-ga. 


GENTES  IN  OTHER  TRIBES. 


157 


the  names  of  white  and  black.  The  Turtle  will  be  found  here- 
after as  a  further  illustration  of  the  same  fact.  When  I  visited 
the  Missouri  tribes  in  1859  and  i860,  I  was  unable  to  reach  the 
Osages  and  Ouappas.  The  eight  tribes  thus  named  speak 
closely  affiliated  dialects  of  the  Dakotian  stock  language,  and 
the  presumption  that  the  Osages  and  Ouappas  are  organized 
in  gentes  is  substantially  conclusive.  In  1869,  the  Kaws,  then 
much  reduced,  numbered  seven  hundred,  which  would  give  an 
average  of  but  fifty  persons  to  a  gens.  The  home  country  of 
these  several  tribes  was  along  the  Missouri  and  its  tributaries 
from  the  mouth  of  the  Big  Sioux  river  to  the  Mississippi,  and 
down  the  west  bank  of  the  latter  river  to  the  Arkansas. 

^3^  Winnebagoes.  When  discovered  this  tribe  resided  near 
the  lake  of  their  name  in  Wisconsin.  An  offshoot  from  the 
Dakotian  stem,  they  were  apparently  following  the  track  of  the 
Iroquois  eastward  to  the  valley  of  the  St.  Lawrence,  when 
their  further  progress  in  that  direction  was  arrested  by  the  Al- 
gonkin  tribes  between  Lakes  Huron  and  Superior.  Their  near- 
est affiliation  is  with  the  Missouri  tribes.  They  have  eight 
gentes  as  follows: 

I.  Wolf.         2.  Bear.  3.  Buffalo.         4.  Eagle. 

5.  Elk.  6.  Deer.  7.  Snake.  8.  Thunder.^ 

Descent,  inheritance,  and  the  law  of  marriage  are  the  same 
among  them  as  among  the  Punkas.  It  is  surprising  that  so 
many  tribes  of  this  stock  should  have  changed  descent  from 
the  female  line  to  the  male,  because  when  first  known  the  idea 
of  property  was  substantially  undeveloped,  or  but  slightly  be- 
yond the  germinating  stage,  and  could  hardly,  as  among  the 
Greeks  and  Romans,  have  been  the  operative  cause.  It  is 
probable  that  it  occurred  at  a  recent  period  under  American 
and  missionary  influences.  Carver  found  traces  of  descent  in 
the  female  line  in  1787  among  the  Winnebagoes.  "Some  na- 
tions," he  remarks,  "when  the  dignity  is  hereditary,  limit  the 
succession  to  the  female  line.  On  the  death  of  a  chief  his  sis- 
ters' son  succeeds  him  in  preference  to  his  own  son;  and  if  he 


'  I.   Shonk-chun'-ga-da. 

2.   Hone-cha'-da.            3.   Cha'-ra. 

4.   \Vahk-cha'-he-da. 

5.   Hoo-\vim'-na.            6.  Cha'-ra, 

7.  Wa-kon'-na. 

8.  Wa-kon'-cha-ra. 

158 


ANCIENT  SOCIETY. 


happens  to  have  no  sister  the  nearest  female  relation  assumes 
the  dignity.  This  accounts  for  a  woman  being  at  the  head  of 
the  Winnebago  nation,  which,  before  I  was  acquainted  with 
their  laws,  appeared  strange  to  me."^  In  1869,  the  Winne- 
bagoes  numbered  fourteen  hundred,  which  would  give  an  aver- 
age of  one  hundred  and  fifty  persons  to  the  gens. 
4.  Upper  Missouri  Tribes. 
I.  Mandans.  In  intelligence  and  in  the  arts  of  life  the 
Mandans  were  in  advance  of  all  their  kindred  tribes,  for  which 
they  were  probably  indebted  to  the  Minnitarees.  They  are 
divided  into  seven  gentes  as  follows: 

I.  Wolf        2.   Bear.  3.   Prairie  Chicken.    4.   Good  Knife. 

5.  Eagle.      6.  Flathead.     7.  High  Village.^ 

Descent  is  in  the  female  line,  with  office  and  property  hered- 
itary in  the  gens.  Intermarriage  in  the  gens  is  not  permitted. 
Descent  in  the  female  line  among  the  Mandans  would  be  sin- 
gular where  so  many  tribes  of  the  same  stock  have  it  in  the 
male,  were  it  not  in  the  archaic  form  from  which  the  other 
tribes  had  but  recently  departed.  It  affords  a  strong  presump- 
tion that  it  was  originally  in  the  female  line  in  all  the  Dakotian 
tribes.  This  information  with  respect  to  the  Mandans  was  ob- 
tained at  the  old  Mandan  Village  in  the  Upper  Missouri,  in 
1862,  from  Joseph  Kip,  whose  mother  was  a  Mandan  woman. 
He  confirmed  the  fact  of  descent  by  naming  his  mother's  gens, 
which  was  also  his  own. 

2.  Minnitarees.  This  tribe  and  the  Upsarokas  (Up-sar'-o- 
kas)  or  Crows,  are  subdivisions  of  an  original  people.  They 
"are  doubtful  members  of  this  branch  of  the  Ganowanian  family: 
although  from  the  number  of  words  in  their  dialects  and  in 
those  of  the  Missouri  and  Dakota  tribes  which  are  common, 
they  have  been  placed  with  them  linguistically.  They  have 
had  an  antecedent  experience  of  which  but  little  is  known. 
Minnitarees  carried  horticulture,  the  timber-framed  house,  and 
a  peculiar  religious  system  into  this  area  which  they  taught  to 

'  Travels,  loc.  cit.,  p.  166. 

*  I.  Ho-ra-ta'-mu-make.        2.  Mii-to'-no-make.  3.  See-poosh'-kii. 

4.  Ta-na-tsu'-ka.  5.  Ki-ta'-ne-make.  6.   E-stii-pa'. 

7.  Me-te-ah'-ke. 


GENTES  IN  OTHER  TRIBES.  1 59 

the  IMandans.     There  is  a  possibility  that  they  are  descend- 
ants of  the  Mound-Builders.     They  have  the  seven  following 
gentes : 
I.  Knife.  2.  Water.  3.  Lodge. 

4.  Prairie  Chicken.  5.  Hill  People.  6.  Unknown  Animal. 
7.  Bonnet.^ 
Descent  is  in  the  female  line,  intermarriage  in  the  gens  is 
forbidden,  and  the  office  of  sachem  as  well  as  property  is 
hereditary  in  the  gens.  The  Minnitarees  and  Mandans  now 
live  together  in  the  same  village.  In  personal  appearance 
they  are  among  the  finest  specimens  of  the  Red  Man  now  living 
in  any  part  of  North  America. 

3.   Upsarokas  or  Crows.     This  tribe  has  the  following  gentes: 


I. 

Prairie  Dog. 

2. 

Bad  Leggins. 

3- 

Skunk. 

4- 

Treacherous  Lodges. 

5- 

Lost  Lodges. 

6. 

Bad  Honors. 

7- 

Butchers. 

8. 

Moving  Lodges. 

9- 

Bear's  Paw  Mountain. 

10. 

Blackfoot  Lodges. 

II. 

Fish  Catchers. 

12. 

Antelope. 

13.  Raven. ^ 
Descent,  inheritance  and  the  prohibition  of  intermarriage  in 
the  gens,  are  the  same- as  among  the  Minnitarees.  Several  of 
the  names  of  the  Crow  gentes  are  unusual,  and  more  suggestive 
of  bands  than  of  gentes.  For  a  time  I  was  inclined  to  discredit 
them.  But  the  existence  of  the  organization  into  gentes  was 
clearly  established  by  their  rules  of  descent,  and  marital  usages, 
and  by  their  laws  of  inheritance  with  respect  to  property.  My 
interpreter  when  among  the  Crows  was  Robert  Meldrum,  then 
one  of  the  factors  of  the  American  Fur  Company,  who  had 
lived  with  the  Crows  forty  years,  and  was  one  of  their  chiefs. 
He  had  mastered  the  language  so  completely  that  he  thought 
in  it.     The  following  special  usages  with  respect  to  inheritance 


1 1. 

Mit-che-ro'-ka. 

2.  Min-ne-pa'-ta.               3.  Ba-ho-lia'-ta. 

4.   Seech-ka-be-ruh-pii'-ka.                     5.   E-tish-sho'-ka. 

6.  Ah-nali-ha- 

na' 

'-me-te.                          7.   E-ku'-pa-be-ka. 

«I. 

A-chc-pa-be'-cha. 

2.  E-sach'-ka-buk.                 3.   Ho-ka-rut'-cha. 

4- 

Ash-bot-chee-ah. 

5.  Ah-shin'-na-de'-ah.          6.  Ese-kep-ka'-buk. 

7- 

Oo-sa-bot'-see. 

8.   Ah-ha-chick.                      9.   Ship-tet'-za. 

10. 

Ash-kane'-na. 

II.   Boo-a-da'-sha.      -           12.   O-hot-du'-sha. 
13.  Pet-chale-ruH-pa'-ka. 

1 60  ANCIENT  SOCIE T  V. 

were  mentioned  by  him.  If  a  person  to  whom  any  article  of 
property  had  been  presented  died  with  it  in  his  possession,  and 
the  donor  was  dead,  it  reverted  to  the  gens  of  the  latter. 
Property  made  or  acquired  by  a  wife  descended  after  her  death 
to  her  children;  while  that  of  her  husband  after  his  decease  be- 
longed to  his  gentile  kindred.  If  a  person  made  a  present  to 
a  friend  and  died,  the  latter  must  perform  some  recognized  act 
of  mourning,  such  as  cutting  off  the  joint  of  a  finger  at  the 
funeral,  or  surrender  the  property  to  the  gens  of  his  deceased 
friend.^ 

The  Crows  have  a  custom  with  respect  to  marriage,  which  I 
have  found  in  at  least  forty  other  Indian  tribes,  which  may  be 
mentioned  here,  because  some  use  will  be  made  of  it  in  a  sub- 
sequent chapter.  If  a  man  marries  the  eldest  daughter  in  a 
family  he  is  entitled  to  all  her  sisters  as  additional  wives  when 
they  attain  maturity.  He  may  waive  the  right,  but  if  he  in- 
sists, his  superior  claim  would  be  recognized  by  her  gens. 
Polygamy  is  allowed  by  usage  among  the  American  aborigines 
generally;  but  it  was  never  prevalent  to  any  considerable  ex- 
tent from  the  inability  of  persons  to  support  more  than  one 
family.  Direct  proof  of  the  existence  of  the  custom  first  men- 
tioned was  afforded  by  Meldrum's  wife,  then  at  the  age  of  twenty- 
five.  She  was  captured  when  a  child  in  a  foray  upon  the  Black- 
feet,  and  became  Meldrum's  captive.  He  induced  his  mother- 
in-law  to  adopt  the  child  into  her  gens  and  family,  which  made 
the  captive  the  younger  sister  of  his  then  wife,  and  gave  him 
the  right  to  take  her  as  another  wife  when  she  reached  matu- 
rity. He  availed  himself  of  this  usage  of  the  tribe  to  make  his 
claim  paramount.  This  usage  has  a  great  antiquity  in  the 
human  family.  It  is  a  survival  of  the  old  custom  o{ pwiahta. 
III.  Gulf  Tribes. 
I.  Muscokees  or  Creeks.  The  Creek  Confederacy  consisted 
of  six  Tribes;  namely,  the  Creeks,  Hitchetes,  Yoochees,  Ala- 

1  This  practice  as  an  act  of  mourning  is  very  common  among  the  Crows,  and 
also  as  a  religious  offering  when  they  hold  a  "  Medicine  Lodge,"  a  great  religious 
ceremonial.  In  a  basket  hung  up  in  a  Medicine  Lodge  for  their  reception  as 
offerings,  fifty,  and  sometimes  a  hundred  finger  joints,  I  have  been  told,  are 
sometimes  thus  collected.  At  a  Crow  encampment  on  the  Upper  Missouri  I 
noticed  a  number  of  women  and  men  with  their  hands  mutilated  by  this  practice. 


GENTES  IN  0  THER  TRIBES.  1 6 1 

bamas,  Coosatees,  and  Natches,  all  of  whom  spoke  dialects  of 
the  same  language,  with  the  exception  of  the  Natches,  who 
M'ere  admitted  into  the  confederacy  after  their  overthrow  by 
the  French. 

The  Creeks  are  composed  of  twenty-two  gentes  as  follows: 

Bear. 

Deer. 

Wind. 


I. 

Wolf 

2. 

4- 

Alligator. 

5- 

7- 

Tiger. 

8. 

lO. 

Mole. 

1 1. 

13- 

Fish. 

14. 

1 6. 

Hickory  Nut. 

17- 

19. 

(Sig'n  Lost). 

20. 
22. 

--> 
J- 

Skunk. 

6. 

Bird. 

9- 

Toad. 

12. 

Raccoon. 

15- 

Potatoe. 

18. 

Wild  Cat. 

21. 

(Sig'n  Lost). 

Corn. 

Salt. 

(Sig'n  Lost).^ 

(Sig'n  Lost).^ 

The  remaining  tribes  of  this  confederacy  are  said  to  have  had 
the  organization  into  gentes,  as  the  author  was  informed  by  the 
Rev.  S.  M.  Loughridge,  who  was  for  many  years  a  missionary 
among  the  Creeks,  and  who  furnished  the  names  of  the  gentes 
above  given.  He  further  stated  that  descent  among  the  Creeks 
was  in  the  female  line;  that  the  office  of  sachem  and  the  prop- 
erty of  deceased  persons  were  hereditary  in  the  gens,  and  that 
intermarriage  in  the  gens  was  prohibited.  At  the  present  time 
the  Creeks  are  partially  civilized  with  a  changed  plan  of  life. 
They  have  substituted  a  political  in  place  of  the  old  social  sys- 
tem, so  that  in  a  few  years  all  traces  of  their  old  gentile  insti- 
tutions will  have  disappeared.  In  1869  they  numbered  about 
fifteen  thousand,  which  would  give  an  average  of  five  hundred 
and  fifty  persons  to  the  gens. 

2.  Choctas.  Among  the  Choctas  the  phratric  organization 
appears  in  a  conspicuous  manner,  because  each  phratry  is 
named,  and  stands  out  plainly  as  a  phratry.  It  doubtless  ex- 
isted in  a  majority  of  the  tribes  previously  named,  but  the  sub- 
ject has   not  been   specially  investigated.     The   tribe  of  the 


*  I.  Yii'-ha 

2. 

No-kuse'. 

3- 

Ku'-mu. 

4- 

Kal-put'-lii. 

5.  E'-cho. 

6. 

Tus'-wa. 

7- 

Kat'-chu. 

8. 

Ho-tor'-lee. 

9.   So-pak'-tu. 

10. 

Tuk'-ko. 

II. 

Clui'-la. 

12. 

Wo'-tko. 

13.   Hu'-hlo. 

14. 

U'-che. 

15- 

Ah'-ah. 

16. 

0-che'. 

17.  Ok-chun'-wa. 

18. 

Ku-\va'-ku-che. 

19. 

Ta-mul'-kee. 

20. 

Ak-tu-ya- 

21.  Is-fa-nul'-ke. 

22. 

Wa-hlak-kul' 

-kee. 

chul'-kee. 

'  Sig'n  =  signification. 

II 

1 62  ANCIENT  SOCIETY. 

Creeks  consists  of  eight  gentes  arranged  in  two  phratries,  com- 
posed of  four  gentes  each,  as  among  the  Iroquois. 
I.   Divided  People.     (First  PJiratry). 
I.  Reed.       2.  Law  Okla.       3.  Lulak.       4.   Linoklusha. 
II.  Beloved  People,     (Second  PJiratry). 

I.  Beloved  People.  2.  Small  People. 

3.   Large  People.  4.   Cray  Fish.^ 

The  gentes  of  the  same  phratry  could  not  intermarry;  but 
the  members  of  either  of  the  first  gentes  could  marry  into  either 
gens  of  the  second,  and  viee  versa.  It  shows  that  the  Choc- 
tas,  like  the  Iroquois,  commenced  with  two  gentes,  each  of 
Avhich  afterwards  subdivided  into  four,  and  that  the  original 
prohibition  of  intermarriage  in  the  gens  had  followed  the  sub- 
divisions. Descent  among  the  Choctas  was  in  the  female  line. 
Property  and  the  office  of  sachem  were  hereditary  in  the  gens. 
In  1869  they  numbered  some  twelve  thousand,  which  would 
give  an  average  of  fifteen  hundred  persons  to  a  gens.  The 
foregoing  information  was  communicated  to  the  author  by  the 
late  Dr.  Cyrus  Byington,  who  entered  the  missionary  service 
in  this  tribe  in  1820  while  they  still  resided  in  their  ancient  terri- 
tory east  of  the  Mississippi,  who  removed  with  them  to  the  In- 
dian Territory,  and  died  in  the  missionary  service  about  the 
year  1868,  after  forty-five  years  of  missionary  labors.  A  man 
of  singular  excellence  and  purity  of  character,  he  has  .left  be- 
hind him  a  name  and  a  memory  of  which  humanity  may  be 
proud. 

A  Chocta  once  expressed  to  Dr.  Byington  a  wish  that  he 
might  be  made  a  citizen  of  the  United  States,  for  the  reason 
that  his  children  would  then  inherit  his  property  instead  of  his 
gentile  kindred  under  the  old  law  of  the  gens.  Chocta  usages 
would  distribute  his  property  after  his  death  among  his  broth- 
ers and  sisters  and  the  children  of  his  sisters.  He  could,  how- 
ever, give  his  property  to  his  children  in  his  life-time,  in  which 
.case  they  could  hold  it  against  the  members  of  his  gens.     Many 

»  First.  Ku-shap'.  Ok'-la. 
I.   Kush-ik'-sa.  2.  Law-ok'-la.  3.  Lu-lak  Ik'sa.         4.  Lin-ok-lu'-sha. 

Second.  Wa-tak-i-Hu-lii'-ta. 
il.  Chu-fan-ik'-sii.       2.  Is-ku-la'-ni.  3.  Chi'-to.  4.  Shak-chuk'-la. 


GENTES  IN  OTHER  TRIBES.  1 63 

Indian  tribes  now  have  considerable  property  in  domestic  ani- 
mals and  in  houses  and  lands  owned  by  individuals,  among 
whom  the  practice  of  giving  it  to  their  children  in  their  life-time 
has  become  common  to  avoid  gentile  inheritance.  As  prop- 
erty increased  in  quantity  the  disinheritance  of  children  began 
to  arouse  opposition  to  gentile  inheritance;  and  in  some  of  the 
tribes,  that  of  the  Choctas  among  the  number,  the  old  usage 
was  abolished  a  few  years  since,  and  the  right  to  inherit  was 
vested  exclusively  in  the  children  of  the  deceased  owner.  It 
came,  however,  through  the  substitution  of  a  political  system  in 
the  place  of  the  gentile  system,  an  elective  council  and  mag- 
istracy being  substituted  in  place  of  the  old  government  of 
chiefs.  Under  the  previous  usages  the  wife  inherited  nothing 
from  her  husband,  nor  he  from  her;  but  the  wife's  effects  were 
divided  among  her  children,  and  in  default  of  them,  among  her 
sisters. 

3.  Chickasas.  In  like  manner  the  Chickasas  were  organized 
in  two  phratries,  of  which  the  first  contains  four,  and  the  sec- 
ond eight  gentes,  as  follows: 

I.  Panther  Phratry. 

I.  Wild  Cat.  2.   Bird.  3.   Fish.  4.   Deer. 

II.  SpanisJi  Phratry. 

I.  Raccoon.  2.  Spanish.  3.  Royal.  4.  Hush-ko-ni. 
5.  Squirrel.  6.  Alligator.  7.  Wolf  8.  Blackbird.^ 
Descent  was  in  the  female  line,  intermarriage  in  the  gens  was 
prohibited,  and  property  as  well  as  the  office  of  sachem  were 
hereditary  in  the  gens.  The  above  particulars  were  obtained 
from  the  Rev.  Charles  C.  Copeland,  an  American  missionary  re- 
siding with  this  tribe.  In  1869  they  numbered  some  five  thou- 
sand, which  would  give  an  average  of  about  four  hundred  per- 
sons to  the  gens.  A  new  gens  seems  to  have  been  formed 
after  their  intercourse  with  the  Spaniards  commenced,  or  this 
name,  for  reasons,  may  have  been  substituted  in  the  place  of  an 
original  name.      One  of  the  phratries  is  also  called  the  Spanish. 

'  I.  Koi. 
I.  Ko-in-chush.         2.  Ha-tiik-fu-shi.       3.  Nun-ni.  4.  Is-si. 

II.  Ish-pan-ee. 
I.  Sha-u-ee.  2.  Ish-pan-ee.  3.  Ming-ko.  4.  Hushko-ni. 

5.  Tun-ni.  6.  Ho-chon-chab-ba.         7.  Na-sho-la.  8.  Chuh-hla. 


1 64  ANCIENT  SOCIETY. 

4.  Cherokees.  This  tribe  was  anciently  composed  of  ten 
gentes,  of  which  two,  the  Acorn,  AJi-nc-dsu' -la,  and  the  Bird, 
Ah-ne-dse' -skivii,  are  now  extinct.     They  are  the  following: 

I.  Wolf     2.  Red  Paint.     3.  Long  Prairie.     4.  Deaf  (A  bird.) 
5.  Holly.  6.  Deer.  7.  Blue.  8.  Long  Hair.^ 

Descent  is  in  the  female  line,  and  intermarriage  in  the  gens 
prohibited.  Li  1869  the  Cherokees  numbered  fourteen  thou- 
sand, which  would  give  an  average  of  seventeen  hundred  and 
fifty  persons  to  each  gens.  This  is  the  largest  number,  so  far 
as  the  fact  is  known,  ever  found  in  a  single  gens  among  the 
American  aborigines.  The  Cherokees  and  Ojibwas  at  the  pres- 
ent time  exceed  all  the  remaining  Lidian  tribes  within  the 
United  States  in  the  number  of  persons  speaking  the  same  dia- 
lect. It  may  be  remarked  further,  that  it  is  not  probable  that 
there  ever  was  at  any  time  in  any  part  of  North  America  a  hun- 
dred thousand  Indians  who  spoke  the  same  dialect.  The  Az- 
tecs, Tezcucans  and  Tlascalans  were  the  only  tribes  of  whom  so 
large  a  number  could,  with  any  propriety,  be  claimed;  and 
with  respect  to  them  it  is  difficult  to  perceive  how  the  existence 
of  so  large  a  number  in  either  tribe  could  be  established,  at  the 
epoch  of  the  Spanish  Conquest,  upon  trustworthy  evidence. 
The  unusual  numbers  of  the  Creeks  and  Cherokees  is  due  to 
the  possession  of  domestic  animals  and  a  well-developed  field 
agriculture.  They  are  now  partially  civilized,  having  substi- 
tuted an  elective  constitutional  government  in  the  place  of  the 
ancient  gentes,  under  the  influence  of  which  the  latter  are  rap- 
idly falling  into  decadence. 

5.  Seminoles.  This  tribe  is  of  Creek  descent.  They  are 
said  to  be  organized  into  gentes,  but  the  particulars  have  not 
been  obtained. 

IV.   Pawnee   Tribes. 

Whether  or  not  the  Pawnees  are  organized  in  gentes  has  not 

been  ascertained.      Rev.  Samuel  AUis,  who  had  formerly  been 

a  missionary  among  them,  expressed  to  the  author  his  belief 

that  they  were,  although  he  had  not  investigated  the  matter 

*  I.  Ah-ne-whi'-ya.  2.  Ah-ne-who'-teh.  3.  Ah-ne-ga-ta-ga'-nih. 

4.   Dsu-ni-li'-a-na.  5.    U-ni-sda'-sdi.  6.   Ah-nee-ka'-wih. 

7.  Ah-nee-sa-hok'-nih.  8.  Ah-nu-ka-lo'-high.      ah-nee  signifies  the  plural. 


GENTES  IN  OTHER  TRIBES.  1 65 

specially.     He  named  the  following  gentes  of  which  he  believed 
they  were  composed: 

I.  Bear.  2.  Beaver.  3.  Eagle. 

4.  Buffalo.  5.  Deer.  6.   Owl. 

I  once  met  a  band  of  Pawnees  on  the  Missouri,  but  was  un- 
able to  obtain  an  interpreter. 

The  Arickarees,  whose  village  is  near  that  of  the  Minnitarees, 
are  the  nearest  congeners  of  the  Pawnees,  and  the  same  diffi- 
culty occurred  with  them.  These  tribes,  with  the  Huecos  and 
some  two  or  three  other  small  tribes  residing  on  the  Canadian 
river,  have  always  lived  west  of  the  Missouri,  and  speak  an  in- 
dependent stock  language.  If  the  Pawnees  are  organized  in 
gentes,  presumptively  the  other  tribes  are  the  same. 
V.  Algonkiii   Tribes. 

At  the  epoch  of  their  discovery  this  great  stock  of  the 
American  aborigines  occupied  the  area  from  the  Rocky 
Mountains  to  Hudson's  Bay,  south  of  the  Siskatchewun,  and 
thence  eastward  to  the  Atlantic,  including  both  shores  of  Lake 
Superior,  except  at  its  head,  and  both  banks  of  the  St.  Law- 
rence below  Lake  Champlain.  Their  area  extended  southward 
along  the  Atlantic  coast  to  North  Carolina,  and  down  the  east 
bank  of  the  Mississippi  in  Wisconsin  and  Illinois  to  Kentucky. 
Within  the  eastern  section  of  this  immense  region  the  Iroquois 
and  their  affiliated  tribes  were  an  intrusive  people,  their  only 
competitor  for  supremacy  within  its  boundaries. 

Gitchigamian^  Tribes,  i.  Ojibwas.  The  Ojibwas  speak  the 
same  dialect,  and  are  organized  in  gentes,  of  which  the  names 
of  twenty-three  have  been  obtained  without  being  certain  that 
they  include  the  whole  number.  In  the  Ojibwa  dialect  the 
word  totem,  quite  as  often  pronounced  dodaiin,  signifies  the 
symbol  or  device  of  a  gens;  thus  the  figure  of  a  wolf  was  the 
totem  of  the  Wolf  gens.  From  this  Mr.  Schoolcraft  used  the 
Avords  "totemic  system,"  to  express  the  gentile  organization, 
which  would  be  perfectly  acceptable  were  it  not  that  we  have 
both  in  the  Latin  and  the  Greek  a  terminology  for  every  qual- 
ity and  character  of  the  system  which  is  already  historical.      It 

'  I.  From  the  Ojibwa,  gi-tcJii' ,  great,  and  gd'me,  lake,  the  aboriginal  name 
of  Lake  Superior,  and  other  great  lakes. 


1  ^(i  ANCIENT  SOCIE  T  Y. 

may  be  used,  however,  with  advantage.     The  Ojibwas  have  the 
following  gentes: 

I.  Wolf.  2.  Bear.  3.  Beaver. 

4.  Turtle  (Mud).        5.  Turtle  (Snapping).       6.  Turtle  (Little). 

7.  Reindeer.  8.  Snipe.  9.  Crane. 

10.  Pigeon  Hawk.      ii.  Bald  Eagle.  12.  Loon. 

13.  Duck.  14.  Duck.  15.  Snake. 

16.  Muskrat.  17.  Marten.  18.  Heron. 

19.  Bull-head.  20.  Carp.  21.  Cat  Fish 

22.  Sturgeon.  23.  Pike.^ 

Descent  is  in  the  male  line,  the  children  belonging  to  their 
,  father's  gens.  There  are  several  reasons  for  the  inference  that 
it  was  originally  in  the  female  line,  and  that  the  change  was 
comparatively  recent.  In  the  first  place,  the  Delawares,  who 
are  recognized  by  all  Algonkin  tribes  as  one  of  the  oldest  of 
their  lineage,  and  who  are  styled  "Grandfathers"  by  all  alike, 
still  have  descent  in  the  female  line.  Several  other  Algonkin 
tribes  have  the  same.  Secondly,  evidence  still  remains  that 
wathin  two  or  three  generations  back  of  the  present,  descent  was 
in  the  female  line,  with  respect  to  the  office  of  chiefs  Thirdly, 
American  and  missionary  influences  have  generally  opposed  it. 
A  scheme  of  descent  which  disinherited  the  sons  seemed  to  the 
early  missionaries,  trained  under  very  different  conceptions, 
without  justice  or  reason;  and  it  is  not  improbable  that  in  a 
number  of  tribes,  the  Ojibwas  included,  the  change  was  made 
under   their    teachings.     And    lastly,   since   several   Algonkin 


1 1. 

My-een'-gun. 

2. 

Ma-kvva'.                3. 

Ah-mik'. 

4- 

Me-she'-ka. 

5- 

Mik-o-noh'. 

6. 

Me-skwa-da'-re.    7. 

Ah-dik'. 

8. 

Chu-e-skwe'- 

9- 

O-jee-jok'. 

10. 

Ka-kake'.              1 1 . 

0-me-gee-ze'. 

ske-vrii. 

12. 

Mong. 

13- 

Ah-ah'-weh.         14. 

She-shebe'. 

15- 

Ke-na'-big, 

16. 

Wa-zhush'. 
Nii-ma'-bin. 

17- 
21. 

Wa-be-zhaze'.     18. 

Moosh-ka-00-ze', 

Na-ma'. 

,  19. 

Ah-wah-sis'- 

20. 

sa. 

23.  Ke-no'-zhe. 

''■  An  Ojibwa  sachem,  Ke-we' -Icons,  who  died  about  1840,  at  the  age  of  ninety 
years,  when  asked  by  my  informant  why  he  did  not  retire  from  office  and  give 
place  to  his  son,  rephed,  that  his  son  could  not  succeed  him ;  that  the  right 
of  succession  belonged  to  his  nephew,  E-Iiwa' -ka-niik,  who  must  have  the  office. 
This  nephew  was  a  son  of  one  of  his  sisters.  From  this  statement  it  follows  that 
descent,  anciently,  and  within  a  recent  period,  was  in  the  female  line.  It  does  not 
follow  from  the  form  of  the  statement  that  the  nephew  would  take  by  hereditary 
right,  but  that  he  was  in  the  line  of  succession,  and  his  election  was  substantially 
assured. 


GENTES  IN  OTHER  TRIBES.  1 6/ 

tribes  now  have  descent  in  the  female  Hne,  it  leads  to  the  con- 
clusion that  it  was  anciently  universal  in  the  Ganowanian  fam- 
ily, it  being  also  the  archaic  form  of  the  institution. 

Intermarriage  in  the  gens  is  prohibited,  and  both  property 
and  office  are  hereditary  in  the  gens.  The  children,  however, 
at  the  present  time,  take  the  most  of  it  to  the  exclusion  of 
their  gentile  kindred.  The  property  and  effects  of  the  mother 
pass  to  her  children,  and  in  default  of  them,  to  her  sisters,  own 
and  collateral.  In  like  manner  the  son  may  succeed  his  father 
in  the  office  of  sachem;  but  where  there  are  several  sons  the 
choice  is  determined  by  the  elective  principle.  The  gentiles 
not  only  elect,  but  they  also  retain  the  power  to  depose.  At 
the  present  time  the  Ojibwas  number  some  sixteen  thousand, 
which  would  give  an  average  of  about  seven  hundred  to  each 
gens. 

2.  Potawattamies.     This  tribe  has  fifteen  gentes,  as  follows: 

I.  Wolf  2.  Bear.  3.  Beaver. 

4.  Elk.  5.  Loon.  6.  Eagle. 

7.  Sturgeon.  8.  Carp.  9.  Bald  Eagle. 

10.  Thunder.          ii.  Rabbit.  12.  Crow. 

13.  Fox.  14.  Turkey.  15.  Black  Hawk.^ 

Descent,  inheritance,  and  the  law  of  marriage  are  the  same 
as  among  the  Ojibwas. 

3.  Otawas.^  The  Ojibwas,  Otawas  and  Potawattamies  were 
subdivisions  of  an  original  tribe.  When  first  known  they  were 
confederated.  The  Otawas  were  undoubtedly  organized  in 
gentes,  but  their  names  have  not  been  obtained. 

4.  Crees.  This  tribe,  when  discovered,  held  the  northwest 
shore  of  Lake  Superior,  and  spread  from  thence  to  Hudson's 
Bay,  and  westward  to  the  Red  River  of  the  North.  At  a  later 
day  they  occupied  the  region  of  the  Siskatchewun,  and  south 
of  it.  Like  the  Dakotas  they  have  lost  the  gentile  organiza- 
tion  which   presumptively   once   existed   among  them.      Lin- 

3.   Muk.  4.  Mis-sha'-wa. 

7.   N'-ma'.  8.   N'-ma-pe-na'. 

II.  Wii-bo'-zo.  12.   Ka-kag'-she. 

15  M'-ke-tash'-she-ka-kah'. 
O-ta'-wa. 
*  Pronounced  O-ta'-wa. 


'  I. 

Mo-ah'. 

2. 

M'-ko'. 

s- 

Maak. 

6. 

K'-nou'. 

9- 

M'-ge-ze'-wa. 

10. 

Che'-kwa. 

13- 

Wake-shi'. 

14. 

Pen'-na. 

16. 

1 68  ANCIENT  SOCIETY. 

guistically  their  nearest  affiliation  is  with  the  Ojibvvas,  whom 
they  closely  resemble  in  manners  and  customs,  and  in  personal 
appearance. 

Mississippi  Tribes.  The  western  Algonkins,  grouped  under 
this  name,  occupied  the  eastern  banks  of  the  Mississippi  in 
Wisconsin  and  Illinois,  and  extended  southward  into  Kentucky, 
and  eastward  into  Indiana. 

I.  Miamis,  The  immediate  congeners  of  the  Miamis, 
namely,  the  Weas,  Piankeshaws  Peorias,  and  Kaskaskias, 
known  at  an  early  day,  collectively,  as  the  Illinois,  are  now 
{<:l\'^  in  numbers,  and  have  abandoned  their  ancient  usages  for  a 
settled  agricultural  life.  Whether  or  not  they  were  formerly 
organized  in  gentes  has  not  been  ascertained,  but  it  is  probable 
that  they  were.     The  Miamis  have  the  following  ten  gentes: 

1.  Wolf  2.  Loon.  3.  Eagle.  4.  Buzzard. 
5.  Panther.          6.  Turkey.          7.  Raccoon.        8.  Snow. 

9.  Sun.  10.  Water.^ 

Under  their  changed  condition  and  declining  numbers  the 
gentile  organization  is  rapidly  disappearing.  When  its  decline 
commenced  descent  was  in  the  male  line,  intermarriage  in  the 
gens  was  forbidden,  and  the  office  of  sachem  together  with 
property  were  hereditary  in  the  gens. 

2.  Shawnees.  This  remarkable  and  highly  advanced  tribe, 
one  of  the  highest  representatives  of  the  Algonkin  stock,  still 
retain  their  gentes,  although  they  have  substituted  in  place  of 
the  old  gentile  system  a  civil  organization  with  a  first  and  sec- 
ond head-chief  and  a  council,  each  elected  annually  by  popular 
suffi-age.  They  have  thirteen  gentes,  which  they  still  maintain 
for  social  and  genealogical  purposes,  as  follows: 

I.  Wolf  2.  Loon.  3.  Bear.  4.  Buzzard. 

5.  Panther.  6.  Owl.  7.  Turkey.  8.  Deer. 

9.  Raccoon.       10.  Turtle.  ii.  Snake.  12.  Horse. 

13.  Rabbit.^ 

*  I.   Mo-wha'-wii.          2.    Moii-gwa'.  3.   Ken-da-wa'.  4.  Ah-pa'-kose-e-a. 

5.  Ka-no-zli'-wa.        6.  Pi-la-wii'.  7.  Ah-se-pon'-na.  8.  Mon-na'-to. 

9.   Kul-swa'.  10.  (Not  obtained). 

*  I.  M'-wa-vva'.             2.   Ma-gwa'.  3.  M'-kwa'.  4.  We-wa'-see. 

5.   M'-se'-pa-se.          6.   M'-ath-wa'.  7.  Pa-la-wa'.  8.   Psake-the'. 

9.   Slia  pa-ta',             10.   Na-ma-tha'.  II.   Ma-na-to'.  12.   Pe-sa-wa'. 

13.  Pa-take-e-no-the'. 


GENTES  IN  OTHER  TRIBES.  1 69 

Descent,  inheritance,  and  the  rule  with  respect  to  marrying 
out  of  the  gens  are  the  same  as  among  the  Miamis.  In  1 869 
the  Shawnees  numbered  but  seven  hundred,  which  would  give 
an  average  of  about  fifty  persons  to  the  gens.  They  once  num- 
bered three  or  four  thousand  persons,  which  was  above  the 
average  among  the  American  Indian  tribes. 

The  Shawnees  had  a  practice,  common  also  to  the  Miamis 
and  Sauks  and  Foxes,  of  naming  children  into  the  gens  of  the 
father  or  of  the  mother  or  any  other  gens,  under  certain  restric- 
tions, which  deserves  a  moment's  notice.  It  has  been  shown 
that  among  the  Iroquois  each  gens  had  its  own  special  names 
for  persons  which  no  other  gens  had  a  right  to  use.^  This 
usage  was  probably  general.  Among  the  Shawnees  these 
names  carried  with  them  the  rights  of  the  gens  to  which  they 
belonged,  so  that  the  name  determined  the  gens  of  the  person. 
As  the  sachem  must,  in  all  cases,  belong  to  the  gens  over  which 
he  is  invested  with  authority,  it  is  not  unlikely  that  the  change 
of  descent  from  the  female  line  to  the  male  commenced  in  this 
practice  ;  in  the  first  place  to  enable  a  son  to  succeed  his  father, 
and  in  the  second  to  enable  children  to  inherit  property  from 
their  father.  If  a  son  when  christened  received  a  name  belonsr- 
ing  to  the  gens  of  his  father  it  would  place  him  in  his  father's 
gens  and  in  the  line  of  succession,  but  subject  to  the  elective 
principle.  The  father,  however,  had  no  control  over  the  ques- 
tion. It  was  left  by  the  gens  to  certain  persons,  most  of  them 
matrons,  who  were  to  be  consulted  when  children  were  to  be 
named,  with  power  to  determine  the  name  to  be  given.  By 
some  arrangement  between  the  Shawnee  gentes  these  persons 
had  this  power,  and  the  name  when  conferred  in  the  prescribed 
manner,  carried  the  person  into  the  gens  to  which  the  name 
belonged. 

There  are  traces  of  the  archaic  rule  of  descent  among  the 
Shawnees,  of  which  the  following  illustration  may  be  given  as 
it  was  mentioned  to  the  author.     Ld-ho' -zveh,  a  sachem  of  the 

'  In  every  tribe  the  name  indicated  the  gens.  Thus,  among  the  Sauks  and 
Foxes  Long  Horn  is  a  name  belonging  to  the  Deer  gens  ;  Black  Wolf,  to  the  wolf. 
In  the  Eagle  gens  the  following  are  specimen  names:  Ji'a'-po-ttd,  "Eagle  draw- 
ing his  nest;  "  Ja-ka-kiva-pe,  "Eagle  sitting  with  his  head  up;  "  Pe-a-id-na-ka^ 
hok,  "Eagle  flying  over  a  limb." 


I/O 


ANCIENT  SOCIETY. 


Wolf  gens,  when  about  to  die,  expressed  a  desire  that  a  son  of 
one  of  his  sisters  might  succeed  him  in  the  place  of  his  own 
son.  But  his  nephew  (Kos-kzua'-thc)  Avas  of  the  Fish  and  his 
son  of  the  Rabbit  gens,  so  that  neither  could  succeed  him 
without  first  being  transferred,  by  a  change  of  name,  to  the 
Wolf  gens,  in  which  the  office  was  hereditary.  His  wish  was 
respected.  After  his  death  the  name  of  his  nephew  was 
changed  to  Tcp-a-tii-go-tJic' ,  one  of  the  Wolf  names,  and  he 
was  elected  to  the  office.  Such  laxity  indicates  a  decadence 
of  the  gentile  organization;  but  it  tends  to  show  that  at  no  re- 
mote period  descent  among  the  Shawnees  was  in  the  female 
line. 

3.  Sauks  and  Foxes.  These  tribes  are  consolidated  into  one, 
and  have  the  following  gentes  : 

I.  Wolf.  2.  Bear.  3.  Deer.  4.  Elk. 

5.   Hawk.  6.  Eagle.  7.  Fish.  8.  Buffalo. 

9.  Thunder.      10.  Bone.  11.  Fox.  12.  Sea. 

13.  Sturgeon.     14.  Big  Tree.^ 

Descent,  inheritance,  and  the  rule  requiring  marriage  out  of 
the  gens,  are  the  same  as  among  the  Miamis.  In  1869  they 
numbered  but  seven  hundred,  which  would  give  an  average  of 
fifty  persons  to  the  gens.  The  number  of  gentes  still  preserved 
affords  some  evidence  that  they  were  several  times  more  numer- 
ous within  the  previous  two  centuries. 

4.  Menominees  and  Kikapoos.  These  tribes,  which  are  in- 
dependent of  each  other,  are  organized  in  gentes,  but  their 
names  have  not  been  procured.  With  respect  to  the  Menomi- 
nees it  may  be  inferred  that,  until  a  recent  period,  descent  was 
in  the  female  line,  from  the  following  statement  made  to  the 
author,  in  1859,  by  Antoine  Gookie,  a  member  of  this  tribe.  In 
answer  to  a  question  concerning  the  rule  of  inheritance,  he  re- 
plied: "If  I  should  die,  my  brothers  and  maternal  uncles  would 
rob  my  wife  and  children  of  my  property.  We  now  expect 
that  our  children  will  inherit  our  effects,  but  there  is  no  certainty 

I  I.  Mo-wha-wis'-so-uk.  2.  RIa-kwis'-so-jik.           3.  Pa-sha'-ga-sa-wis-so-uk. 

4.   Ma-sha-w-a-uk'.  5.   Ka-ka-kwis'-so-uk.       6.  Pa-mis'-so-uk. 

7.   Na-ma-sis'-so-uk.  8.   Na-nns-sus'-so-uk.       9.  Na-na-ma'-kew-uk. 

10.  Ah-kiih'-ne-nak.  11.  Wa-ko-a-wis'-so-jik.  12.  Ka-che-kone-a-we'-so- 

13.  Na-ma-we'-so-uk.  14.  Ma-she'-ma-tak.                                          uk. 


CEiYTES  IN  OTHER  TRIBES.  jyi 

of  it.  The  old  law  gives  my  property  to  my  nearest  kindred 
who  are  not  my  children,  but  my  brothers  and  sisters,  and  ma- 
ternal uncles."  It  shows  that  property  was  hereditary  in  the 
gens,  but  restricted  to  the  agnatic  kindred  in  the  female  line. 

Rocky  Mountain  Tribes,  i.  Blood  Blackfeet.  This  tribe  is 
composed  of  the  five  following  gentes: 

1.  Blood.  2.  Fish  Eaters.  3.  Skunk. 
4.   Extinct  Animal.     5.  Elk.^ 

Descent  is  in  the  male  line,  but  intermarriage  in  the  gens  is 
not  allowed. 

2.  Piegan  Blackfeet.  This  tribe  has  the  eight  following 
gentes : 

I.  Blood.  2.  Skunk.  3.  Web  Fat. 

4.   Inside  Fat.  5.   Conjurers.  6.   Never  Laugh. 

7.  Starving.  8.   Half  Dead  Meat.^ 

Descent  is  in  the  male  line,  and  intermarriage  in  the  gens  is 
prohibited.  Several  of  the  names  above  given  are  more  ap- 
propriate to  bands  than  to  gentes;  but  as  the  information  was 
obtained  from  the  Blackfeet  direct,  through  competent  inter- 
preters, (Mr.  and  Mrs.  Alexander  Culbertson,  the  latter  a 
Blackfeet  woman)  I  believe  it  reliable.  It  is  possible  that  nick- 
names for  gentes  in  some  cases  may  have  superseded  the 
original  names. 

A  tlan  tic   Tribes. 

I.  Delawares.  As  elsewhere  stated  the  Delawares  are,  in 
the  duration  of  their  separate  existence,  one  of  the  oldest  of 
the  Algonkin  tribes.  Their  home  country,  when  discovered, 
was  the  region  around  and  north  of  Delaware  Bay.  They  are 
comprised  in  three  gentes,  as  follows: 

I.  Wolf  Took'-seat.  Round  Paw. 

II.  Turtle.  Poke-koo-un'-go.     Crawling. 

III.  Turkey.  Pul-la'-ook.  Non-chewing. 

These  subdivisions  are  in  the  nature  of  phratries,  because 

1  1.  Ki'-no.  2.  Mii-me-o'-ya.  3.  Ah-pe-ki'.  4.  A-ne'-po. 

5.  Po-no-kix'. 
*  I.  Ah-ah'-pi-ta-pe.  2.  Ah-pe-ki'-e.  3.  Ih-po'-se-ma. 

4.  Ka-ka'-po-ya.  5.  Mo-ta'-to-sis.  6.  Kii-ti'-ya-ye-mix. 

7.  Ka-ta'-ge-ma-ne.  8.  E-ko'-to-pis-taxe. 


172  ANCIENT  SOCIETY. 

each  is  composed  of  twelve  sub-gentes,  each  having  some  of  the 
attributes  of  a  gens.^  The  names  are  personal,  and  mostly,  if 
not  in  every  case,  those  of  females.  As  this  feature  was  unus- 
ual I  worked  it  out  as  minutely  as  possible  at  the  Delaware  res- 
ervation in  Kansas,  in  1 860,  with  the  aid  of  William  Adams,  an 
educated  Delaware.  It  proved  impossible  to  find  the  origin  of 
these  subdivisions,  but  they  seemed  to  be  the  several  eponymous 
ancestors  from  whom  the  members  of  the  gentes  respectively 
derived  their  descent.  It  shows  also  the  natural  growth  of  the 
phratries  from  the  gentes. 

Descent  among  the  Delawares  is  in  the  female  line,  which 
renders  probable  its  ancient  universality  in  this  form  in  the  Al- 
gonkin  tribes.  The  office  of  sachem  was  hereditary  in  the 
gens,  but  elective  among  its  members,  who  had  the  power  both 
to  elect  and  depose.  Property  also  was  hereditary  in  the  gens. 
Originally  the  members  of  the  three  original  gentes  could  not 
intermarry  in  their  own  gens;  but  in  recent  years  the  prohibition 
has  been  confined  to  the  sub-gentes.  Those  of  the  same  name  in 
the  Wolf  gens,  now  partially  become  a  phratry,  for  example, 
cannot  intermarry,  but  those  of  different  names  marry.  The 
practice  of  naming  children  into  the  gens  of  their  father  also 

1  I.  Wolf.     Took'-seat. 

1.  Ma-an'-greet,  Big  Feet.  7.   Pun-ar'-you,  Dog  standing  by  Fireside. 

2.  Wee-sow-het'-ko,  Yellow  Tree.  8.   Kwin-eek'-cha,  Long  Body. 

3.  Pa-sa-kun-a'-mon,  Pulling  Corn.  9.   Moon-har-tar'-ne,  Digging. 

4.  We-yar-nili'-kji-to,  Care  Enterer.  10.   Non-liar'-min,  Pulling  up  Stream. 

5.  Toosli-war-ka'-ma,  Across  the  River.  II.   Long-ush-har-kar'-to,  Brush  Log. 

6.  O-lum'-a-ne,  Vermilion.  12.   Maw-soo-toh',  Bringing  Along. 

IL  Turtle.     Poke-koo-un'-go. 

1.  O-ka-ho'-ki,  Ruler.  6.  Toosh-ki-pa-kwis-i,  Green  Leaves. 

2.  Ta-ko-ong'-o-to,  High  Bank  Shore.      7.  Tung-ul-ung'-si,  Smallest  Turtle. 

3.  See-har-ong'-o-to,  DrawingdownHill.  8.  We-lun-ung-si,  Little  Turtle. 

4.  Ole-har-kar-me'-kar-to,  Elector.  9.   Lee-kwin-a-i',  Snapping  Turtle. 

5.  Ma-har-o-luk'-ti,  Brave.  10.  Kwis-aese-kees'-to,  Deer. 
The  two  remaining  sub-gentes  are  extinct. 

III.  Turkey.     Pul-la'-ook. 

1.  Mo-har-a'-la,  Big  Bird.  6.   Muh-ho-we-ka'-ken,  Old  Shin. 

2.  Le-le-wa'-you,  Bird's  Cry.  7.  Tong-o-na'-o-to,  Drift  Log. 

3.  Moo-kwung-wa-ho'-ki,  Eye  Pain.  8.   Nool-a-mar-lar'-mo,  Living  in  Water. 

4.  Moo-har-mo-wi-kar'-nu,  Scratch  9.   Muh-krent-har'-ne,  Root  Digger. 

the  Path.  10.   Muh-karm-huk-se,  Red  Face. 

5.  O-ping-ho'-ki,  Opossum  Ground.        11.   Koo-wJi-ho'-ke,  Pine  Region. 

12.  Oo-chuk'-ham,  Ground  Scratcher. 


CENTES  IN  OTHER  TRIBES.  1 73 

prevails  among  the  Delawares,  and  has  introduced  the  same 
confusion  of  descents  found  among  the  Shawnees  and  Miamis. 
American  civiHzation  and  intercourse  necessarily  administered  a 
shock  to  Indian  institutions  under  which  the  ethnic  life  of  the 
people  is  gradually  breaking  down. 

Examples  of  succession  in  office  afford  the  most  satisfactory 
illustrations  of  the  aboriginal  law  of  descent.  A  Delaware 
woman,  after  stating  to  the  author  that  she,  with  her  children, 
belonged  to  the  Wolf  gens,  and  her  husband  to  the  Turtle,  re- 
marked that  when  Captain  Ketchum  (Ta-whe'-la-na),  late  head 
chief' or  sachem  of  the  Turtle  gens,  died,  he  was  succeeded  by 
his  nephew,  John  Conner  (Ta-ta-ne'-sha),  a  son  of  one  of  the 
sisters  of  the  deceased  sachem,  who  was  also  of  the  Turtle  gens. 
The  decedent  left  a  son,  but  he  was  of  another  gens  and  conse- 
quently incapable  of  succeeding.  With  the  Delawares,  as  with 
the  Iroquois,  the  office  passed  from  brother  to  brother,  or  from 
uncle  to  nephew,  because  descent  was  in  the  female  line. 

2.  Munsees.  The  Munsees  are  an  offshoot  from  the  Delawares, 
and  have  the  same  gentes,  the  Wolf,  the  Turtle  and  the  Turkey. 
Descent  is  in  the  female  line,  intermarriage  in  the  gens  is  not 
permitted,  and  the  office  of  sachem,  as  well  as  property,  are  he- 
reditary in  the  gens. 

3.  Mohegans.  All  of  the  New  England  Indians,  south  of 
the  river  Kennebeck,  of  whom  the  Mohegans  formed  a  part, 
were  closely  affiliated  in  language,  and  could  understand  each 
other's  dialects.  Since  the  Mohegans  are  organized  in  gentes, 
there  is  a  presumption  that  the  Pequots,  Narragansetts,  and 
other  minor  bands  were  not  only  similarly  organized,  but  had 
the  same  gentes.  The  Mohegans  have  the  same  three  with  the 
Delawares,  the  Wolf,  the  Turtle  and  the  Turkey,  each  of  which 
is  composed  of  a  number  of  gentes.  It  proves  their  immediate 
connection  with  the  Delawares  and  Munsees  by  descent,  and 
also  reveals,  as  elsewhere  stated,  the  process  of  subdivision  by 
which  an  original  gens  breaks  up  into  several,  which  remain 
united  in  a  phratry.  In  this  case  also  it  may  be  seen  how  the 
phratry  arises  naturally  under  gentile  institutions.  It  is  rare 
among  the  American  aborigines  to  find  preserved  the  evidence 
of  the  segmentation  of  original  gentes  as  clearly  as  in  the  pres- 
ent case. 


174 


ANCIENT  SOCIETY. 


The  Mohegaii  phratries  stand  out  more  conspicuously  than 
those  of  any  other  tribe  of  the  American  aborigines,  because 
they  cover  the  gentes  of  each,  and  the  phratries  must  be  stated 
to  explain  the  classification  of  the  gentes;  but  we  know  less 
about  them  than  of  those  of  the  Iroquois.  They  are  the  fol- 
lowing: 

I.  Wolf  Pkratry.      Took-se-tiik' . 

I.  Wolf  2.   Bear.  3.  Dog.  4.   Opossum. 

II.  Turtle  Phratry.      Tonc-bd'-o. 

I.  Litde  Turde.        2.   Mud  TurUe.        3.   Great  Turde. 
4.  Yellow  Eel. 
III.    Turkey  Phratry. 
I.  Turkey  2.   Crane.  3.   Chicken.^ 

Descent  is  in  the  female  line,  intermarriage  in  the  gens  is  for- 
bidden, and  the  office  of  sachem  is  hereditary  in  the  gens,  the 
office  passing  either  from  brother  to  brother,  or  from  uncle  to 
nephew.  Among  the  Pequots  and  Narragansetts  descent  was 
in  the  female  line,  as  I  learned  from  a  Narragansett  woman 
whom  I  met  in  Kansas. 

4.  Abenakis.     The  name  of  this  tribe,  Wa-be-na'-kee,  signi- 
fies "Rising  Sun  People."^     They  affiliate   more  closely  with 
the  Micmacs  than  with  the  New  England  Indians  south  of  the 
Kennebeck.     They  have  fourteen  gentes,  as  follows: 
I.  Wolf  2.  Wild  Cat.  (Black.)       3.  Bear. 

4.  Snake.  5.  Spotted  Animal.  6.  Beaver. 

7.  Cariboo.  8.  Sturgeon.  9.  Muskrat 

10.  Pigeon  Hawk.   11.  Squirrel.  12.  Spotted  Frog. 

13.  Crane.  14.  Porcupine.^ 

'  I.  Took-se-tuk'. 

I.  Ne-li'-ja-o.             2.  Mii'-kwa.               3.  N-de-ya'-o.  4.  Wii-pa-kwe'. 

II.  Tone-ba'-o. 

I.  Gak-po-mnte'.       2. .               3.  Tone-ba'-o.  4.  We-saw-ma'-un. 

III.  Turkey. 

I.  Na-ah-ma'-o.                      2.  Ga-h'-ko.  3.  . 

*  In  Systems  of  Consangitinity,  the  aboriginal  names  of  the  principal  Indian 
tribes,  with  their  significations,  may  be  found. 

3  I.  Mals'-sum.                         2.  Pis-suh'.  3.  Ah-weh'-soos. 

4.   Skooke.                                5.  Ah-lunk'-soo.  6.  Ta-ma'-kwa. 

7.   Ma-guh-le-loo'.                 8.  Ka-bah'-seh.  9.  Moos-kwa-suh'. 

10.  K'-che-gii-gong'-go.       11.   Meli-ko-a'.  12.  Che-gwa'-lis. 
13.  Koos-koo'.                           14.  Ma-da'-weh-soos. 


GENTES  IN  OTHER  TRIBES. 


175 


Descent  is  now  in  the  male  line,  intermarriage  in  the  gens 
was  anciently  prohibited,  but  the  prohibition  has  now  lost  most 
of  its  force.  The  office  of  sachem  was  hereditary  in  the  gens. 
It  will  be  noticed  that  several  of  the  above  gentes  are  the  same 
as  among  the  Ojibwas. 

VI.  A  thapasco- Apache  Tribes. 

Whether  or  not  the  Athapascans  of  Hudson's  Bay  Territory, 
and  the  Apaches  of  New  Mexico,  who  are  subdivisions  of  an 
original  stock,  are  organized  in  gentes  has  not  been  definitely 
ascertained.  When  in  the  former  territory,  in  1861, 1  made  an 
effort  to  determine  the  question  among  the  Hare  and  Red  Knife 
Athapascans,  but  was  unsuccessful  for  want  of  competent  in- 
terpreters; and  yet  it  seems  probable  that  if  the  system  ex- 
isted, traces  of  it  would  have  been  discovered  even  with  imper- 
fect means  of  inquiry.  The  late  Robert  Kennicott  made  a 
similar  attempt  for  the  author  among  the  A-cha'-o-ten-ne,  or 
Slave  Lake  Athapascans,  with  no  better  success.  He  found 
special  regulations  with  respect  to  marriage  and  the  descent  of 
the  office  of  sachem,  which  seemed  to  indicate  the  presence  of 
gentes,  but  he  could  not  obtain  satisfactory  information.  The 
Kutchin  (Louchoux)  of  the  Yukon  river  region  are  Athapas- 
cans. In  a  letter  to  the  author  by  the  late  George  Gibbs,  he 
remarks:  "In  a  letter  which  I  have  from  a  gentleman  at  Fort 
Simpson,  Makenzie  river,  it  is  mentioned  that  among  the  Lou- 
choux or  Kutchin  there  are  three  grades  or  classes  of  society — 
undoubtedly  a  mistake  for  totem,  though  the  totems  probably 
differ  in  rank,  as  he  goes  on  to  say — that  a  man  does  not  marry 
into  his  own  class,  but  takes  a  wife  from  some  other;  and  that 
a  chief  from  the  highest  may  marry  with  a  woman  of  the  low- 
est without  loss  of  caste.  The  children  belong  to  the  grade  of 
the  mother;  and  the  members  of  the  same  grade  in  the  differ- 
ent tribes  do  not  war  with  each  other." 

Among  the  Kolushes  of  the  Northwest  Coast,  who  affiliate 
linguistically  though  not  closely  with  the  Athapascans,  the  or- 
ganization into  gentes  exists.  Mr.  Gallatin  remarks  that  they 
are  "like  our  own  Indians,  divided  into  tribes  or  clans;  a  dis- 
tinction of  which,  according  to  Mr.  Hale,  there  is  no  trace 
among  the  Indians  of  Oregon.     The  names  of  the  tribes  [gen- 


176 


ANCIENT  SOCIETY. 


tes]  are  those  of  animals,  namely:  Bear,  Eagle,  Crow,  Por- 
poise and  Wolf.  .  .  .  The  right  of  succession  is  in  the  female 
line,  from  uncle  to  nephew,  the  principal  chief  excepted,  who  is 
generally  the  most  powerful  of  the  family."^ 

VII.   Indian  Tribes  of  the  Nortlnvest  Coast. 

In  some  of  these  tribes,  beside  the  Kolushes,  the  gentile  or- 
ganization prevails.  "Before  leaving  Puget's  Sound,"  observes 
Mr.  Gibbs,  in  a  letter  to  the  author,  "I  was  fortunate  enough  to 
meet  representatives  of  three  principal  families  of  what  we  call 
the  Northern  Indians,  the  inhabitants  of  the  Northwest  Coast, 
extending  from  the  Upper  end  of  Vancouver's  Island  into  the 
Russian  Possessions,  and  the  confines  of  the  Esquimaux. 
From  them  I  ascertained  positively  that  the  totemic  system 
exists  at  least  among  these  three.  The  families  I  speak  of  are, 
beginning  at  the  northwest,  Tlinkitt,  commonly  called  the  Sti- 
keens,  after  one  of  their  bands;  the  Tlaidas;  and  Chimsyans, 
called  by  Gallatin,  Weas.  There  are  four  totems  common  to 
these,  the  Whale,  the  Wolf,  the  Eagle,  and  the  Crow.  Neither 
of  these  can  marry  into  the  same  totem,  although  in  a  different 
nation  or  family.  What  is  remarkable  is  that  these  nations  con- 
stitute entirely  different  families.  I  mean  by  this  that  their  lan- 
guages are  essentially  different,  having  no  perceptible  analogy." 
Mr.  Dall,  in  his  work  on  Alaska,  written  still  later,  remarks  that 
"the  Tlinkets  are  divided  into  four  totems:  the  Raven  (Yehl), 

the  Wolf  (Kanu'kh),  the  Whale,  and  the  Eagle  (Chethl) 

Opposite  totems  only  can  marry,  and  the  child  usually  takes 
the  mother's  totem.  "'^ 

Mr.  Hubert  H.  Bancroft  presents  their  organization  still  more 
fully,  showing  two  phratries,  and  the  gentes  belonging  to  each. 
He  remarks  of  the  Thlinkeets  that  the  "nation  is  separated  into 
two  great  divisions  or  clans,  one  of  which  is  called  the  Wolf  and 
the  other  the  Raven.  ,  .  .  The  Raven  trunk  is  again  divided 
into  sub-clans,  called  the  Frog,  the  Goose,  the  Sea-Lion,  the 
Owl,  and  the  Salmon.  The  Wolf  family  comprises  the  Bear, 
Eagle,  Dolphin,  Shark,  and  Alca.  .  .  .  Tribes  of  the  same  clan 
may  not  war  on  each  other,  but  at  the  same  time  members  of 

'  Trans.  Am.  Eth,  Soc,  ii,  Intro.,  cxlix. 
'  Alaska  and  its  Resources,  p.  414. 


GENTES  IN  OTHER  TRIBES.  lyj 

the  same  clan  may  not  marry  with  each  other.       Thus,  the 
young  Wolf  warrior  must  seek  his  mate  among  the  Ravens."^ 

The  Eskimos  do  not  belong  to  the  Ganowanian  family. 
Their  occupation  of  the  American  continent  in  comparison 
with  that  of  the  latter  family  was  recent  or  modern.  They  are 
also  without  gentes. 

VIII.  Salts k,  Sahaptin  and  Kootcnay  Tribes. 
The  tribes  of  the  Valley  of  the  Columbia,  of  whom  those 
above  named  represent  the  principal  stocks,  are  without  the 
gentile  organization.  Our  distinguished  philologists,  Horatio 
Hale  and  the  late  George  Gibbs,  both  of  whom  devoted  special 
attention  to  the  subject,  failed  to  discover  any  traces  of  the  sys- 
tem among  them.  There  are  strong  reasons  for  believing  that 
this  remarkable  area  was  the  nursery  land  of  the  Ganowanian 
family,  from  which,  as  the  initial  point  of  their  migrations,  they 
spread  abroad  over  both  divisions  of  the  continent.  It  seems 
probable,  therefore,  that  their  ancestors  possessed  the  organiza- 
tion into  gentes,  and  that  it  fell  into  decay  and  finally  disap- 
peared. 

IX.  S ho  shone e  Tribes. 
The  Comanches  of  Texas,  together  with  the  Ute  tribes,  the 
Bonnaks,  the  Shoshonees,  and  some  otlier  tribes,  belong  to  this 
stock.  Mathew  Walker,  a  Wyandote  half-blood,  informed  the 
author,  in  1859,  that  he  had  lived  among  the  Comanches,  and 
that  they  had  the  following  gentes: 

I.  Wolf.  2.   Bear.  3.   Elk. 

4.  Deer.  5.   Gopher.  6.  Antelope. 

If  the  Comanches  are  organized  in  gentes,  there  is  a  presump- 
tion that  the  other  tribes  of  this  stock  are  the  same. 

This  completes  our  review  of  the  social  system  of  the  Indian 
tribes  of  North  America,  north  of  New  Mexico.  The  greater 
portion  of  the  tribes  named  were  in  the  Lower  Status  of  bar- 
barism at  the  epoch  of  European  discovery,  and  the  remainder 
in  the  Upper  Status  of  savagery.  From  the  wide  and  nearly 
universal  prevalence  of  the  organization  into  gentes,  its  ancient 
universality  among  them  with  descent  in  the  female  line  may 
with  reason  be  assumed.     Their  system  was  purely  social,  hav- 

'  Native  Races  of  the  Pacific  States,  i,  109. 


178  ANCIENT  SOCIETY. 

ing  the  gens  as  its  unit,  and  the  phratry,  tribe  and  confederacy 
as  the  remaining  members  of  the  organic  series.     These  four 
successive  stages  of  integration  and  re-integration  express  the 
whole  of  their  experience  in  the  growth  of  the  idea  of  govern- 
ment.     Since  the  principal  Aryan  and  Semitic  tribes  had  the 
same  organic  series  when  they  emerged  from  barbarism,  the 
system  was  substantially  universal  in  ancient  society,  and  infer- 
entially  had  a  common  origin.     The  punaluan  group,  hereafter 
to  be  described  more  fully  in  connection  with  the  growth  of  the 
idea  of  the  family,  evidently  gave  birth  to  the,gentes,  so  that 
the  Aryan,  Semitic,  Uralian,  Turanian  and  Ganowanian  fami- 
lies of  mankind  point  with  a  distinctiveness  seemingly  unmis- 
takable to  a  common  punaluan  stock,  with  the  organization  into 
gentes  engrafted  upon  it,  from  which  each  and  all  were  derived, 
and  finally  differentiated  into  families.     This  Conclusion,  I  be- 
lieve, will  ultimately  enforce  its  own  acceptance,  when  future 
investigation  has  developed  and  verified  the  facts  on  a  minuter 
scale.      Such  a  great  organic  series,  able  to  hold  mankind  in 
society  through  the  latter  part  of  the  period  of  savagery,  through 
the  entire  period  of  barbarism,  and  into  the  early  part  of  the 
period  of  civilization,  does  not  arise  by  accident,  but  had  a  nat- 
ural development  from  pre-existing  elements.      Rationally  and 
rigorously  interpreted,  it  seems  probable  that  it  can  be  made  de- 
monstrative of  the  unity  of  origin  of  all  the  families  of  man- 
kind who  possessed  the  organization  into  gentes. 
X.    Village  bidians. 
I.   Moqui  Pueblo  Indians.     The  Moqui  tribes  are  still  in  un- 
disturbed possession  of  their  ancient  communal  houses,  seven  in 
number,  near  the  Little  Colorado  in  Arizona,  once  a  part  of 
New  Mexico.     They  are  living  under  their  ancient  institutions, 
and  undoubtedly  at  the  present  moment  fairly  represent  the 
type  of  Village  Indian  life  which  prevailed  from  Zuni  to  Cuzco 
at  the  epoch  of  Discovery.     Zuiii,  Acoma,  Taos,  and  several 
other  New  Mexican  pueblos  are  the  same  structures  which  were 
found   there   by   Coronado   in    1 540-1 542.       Notwithstanding 
their  apparent  accessibility  we  know  in  reality  but  little  con- 
cerning their  mode  of  life  or  their  domestic  institutions.      No 
systematic  investigation  has  ever  been  made.      What  little  in- 
formation has  found  its  way  into  print  is  general  and  accidental. 


GENTES  IN  OTHER  TRIBES. 


179 


The  Moquls  are  organized  in  gentes,  of  which  they  have  nine, 
as  follows: 

I.  Deer.  2.   Sand.  3.  Rain. 

4.  Bear.  5.   Hare.  6.   Prairie  Wolf 

7.   Rattlesnake.  8.  Tobacco  Plant.      9.   Reed  Grass. 

Dr.  Ten  Broeck,  Assistant  Surgeon,  U.  S.  A.,  furnished  to 
Mr.  Schoolcraft  the  Moqui  legend  of  their  origin  which  he  ob- 
tained at  one  of  their  villages.  They  said  that  "many  years 
ago  their  Great  Mother^  brought  from  her  home  in  the  West 
nine  races  of  men  in  the  following  form.  First,  the  Deer  race; 
second,  the  Sand  race;  third,  the  Water  [Rain]  race;  fourth, 
the  Bear  race;  fifth,  the  Hare  race;  sixth,  the  Prairie  Wolf  race; 
seventh,  the  Rattlesnake  race;  eighth,  the  Tobacco  Plant  race; 
and  ninth,  the  Reed  Grass  race.  Having  planted  them  on  the 
spot  where  their  villages  now  stand,  she  transformed  them  into 
men  who  built  up  the  present  pueblos ;  and  the  distinction  of  race 
is  still  kept  up.  One  told  me  that  he  was  of  the  Sand  race,  an- 
other, the  Deer,  etc.  They  are  firm  believers  in  metempsycho- 
sis, and  say  that  when  they  die  they  will  resolve  into  their  orig- 
inal forms,  and  become  bears,  deers,  etc.,  again.  .  .  .  The 
government  is  hereditary,  but  does  not  necessarily  descend  to 
the  son  of  the  incumbent;  for  if  they  prefer  any  other  blood 
relative,  he  is  chosen."^  Having  passed,  in  this  case,  from  the 
Lower  into  the  Middle  Status  of  barbarism,  and  found  the  or- 
ganization into  gentes  in  full  development,  its  adaptation  to 
their  changed  condition  is  demonstrated.  Its  existence  among 
the  Village  Indians  in  general  is  rendered  probable;  but  from 
this  point  forward  in  the  remainder  of  North,  and  in  the  whole 
of  South  America,  we  are  left  without  definite  information  ex- 
cept with  respect  to  the  Lagunas.  It  shows  how  incompletely 
the  work  has  been  done  in  American  Ethnology,  that  the  unit 
of  their  social  system  has  been  but  partially  discovered,  and 
its  significance  not  understood.  Still,  there  are  traces  of  it  in 
the  early  Spanish  authors,  and  direct  knowledge  of  it  in  a  few 
later  waiters,  which  when  brought  together  will  leave  but  little 

'  The  Shawnecs  formerly  worshiped  a  Female  Deity,  called  Go-gome-tha-ma', 
•'  Our  Grand-Mother. " 
*  Schoolcraff  s  Hist. ,  etc. ,  of  Indian  Tribes,  iv,  86. 


1 80  ANCIENT  SOCIE T  Y. 

doubt  of  the  ancient  universal  prevalence  of  the  gentile  organ- 
izations throughout  the  Indian  family. 

There  are  current  traditions  in  many  gentes,  like  that  of  the 
Moquis,  of  the  transformation  of  their  first  progenitors  from 
the  animal,  or  inanimate  object,  which  became  the  symbol  of 
the  gens,  into  men  and  women.  Thus,  the  Crane  gens  of  the 
Ojibwas  have  a  legend  that  a  pair  of  cranes  flew  over  the  wide 
area  from  the  Gulf  to  the  Great  Lakes  and  from  the  prairies  of 
the  Mississippi  to  the  Atlantic  in  quest  of  a  place  where  sub- 
sistence was  most  abundant,  and  finally  selected  the  Rapids  on 
the  outlet  of  Lake  Superior,  since  celebrated  for  its  fisheries. 
Having  alighted  on  the  bank  of  the  river  and  folded  their 
wings  the  Great  Spirit  immediately  changed  them  into  a  man 
and  woman,  who  became  the  progenitors  of  the  Crane  gens  of 
the  Ojibwas.  There  are  a  number  of  gentes  in  the  different 
tribes  who  abstain  from  eating  the  animal  whose  name  they 
bear;   but  this  is  far  from  universal. 

2.  Lagunas.  The  Laguna  Pueblo  Lidians  are  organized  in 
gentes,  with  descent  in  the  female  line,  as  appears  from  an  ad- 
dress of  Rev.  Samuel  Gorman  before  the  Historical  Society  of 
New  Mexico  in  i860.  "Each  town  is  classed  into  tribes  or 
families,  and  each  of  these  groups  is  named  after  some  animal, 
bird,  herb,  timber,  planet,  or  one  of  the  four  elements.  In  the 
pueblo  of  Laguna,  which  is  one  of  above  one  thousand  inhab- 
itants, tliere  are  seventeen  of  these  tribes ;  some  are  called 
bear,  some  deer,  some  rattlesnake,  some  corn,  some  wolf,  some 
water,  etc.,  etc.  The  children  are  of  the  same  tribe  as  their 
mother.  And,  according  to  ancient  custom,  two  persons  of 
the  same  tribe  are  forbidden  to  marry ;  but,  recently,  this  cus- 
tom begins  to  be  less  rigorously  observed  than  anciently." 

"Their  land  is  held  in  common,  as  the  property  of  the  com- 
munity, but  after  a  person  cultivates  a  lot  he  has  a  personal 
claim  to  it,  which  he  can  sell  to  any  one  of  the  same  commu- 
nity; or  else  when  he  dies  it  belongs  to  his  widow  or  daugh- 
ters ;  or,  if  he  were  a  single  man,  it  remains  in  his  father's 
family."^  That  wife  or  daughter  inherit  from  the  father  is 
doubtful. 

'  Address,  p.  12. 


GENTES  IN  OTHER  TRIBES. 


I8r 


3.  Aztecs,  Tezcucans  and  Tlacopans.  The  question  of  the 
organization  of  these,  and  the  remaining  Nahuatlac  tribes  of 
Mexico,  in  gentes  will  be  considered  in  the  next  ensuing 
chapter. 

4.  Mayas  of  Yucatan.  Herrera  makes  frequent  reference  to 
the  "kindred,"  and  in  such  a  manner  with  regard  to  the  tribes 
in  Mexico,  Central  and  South  America  as  to  imply  the  exist- 
ence of  a  body  of  persons  organized  on  the  basis  of  consan- 
guinity much  more  numerous  than  would  be  found  apart  from 
gentes.  Thus:  "He  that  killed  a  free  man  was  to  make  satis- 
faction to  the  children  and  kindred."^  It  was  spoken  of  the 
aborigines  of  Nicaragua,  and  had  it  been  of  the  Iroquois, 
among  whom  the  usage  was  the  same,  the  term  kindred  would 
have  been  equivalent  to  gens.  And  again,  speaking  generally 
of  the  Maya  Indians  of  Yucatan,  he  remarks  that  "when  any 
satisfaction  was  to  be  made  for  damages,  if  he  who  was  ad- 
judged to  pay  was  like  to  be  reduced  to  poverty,  the  kindred 
contributed."^  In  this  another  gentile  usage  may  be  recognized. 
Again,  speaking  of  the  Aztecs;  "if  they  were  guilty,  no  favor 
or  kindred  could  save  them  from  death. "^  One  more  citation 
to  the  same  effect  may  be  made,  applied  to  the  Florida  In- 
dians who  were  organized  in  gentes.  He  observes  "that  they 
were  extravagantly  fond  of  their  children,  and  cherished  them, 
the  parents  and  kindred  lamenting  such  as  died  a  whole  year."* 
The  early  observers  noticed,  as  a  peculiarity  of  Indian  society, 
that  large  numbers  of  persons  were  bound  together  by  the  bond 
of  kin,  and  therefore  the  group  came  to  be  mentioned  as  "the 
kindred."  But  they  did  not  carry  the  scrutiny  far  enough  to 
discover,  what  was  probably  the  truth,  that  the  kindred  formed 
a  gens,  and,  as  such,  the  unit  of  their  social  system. 

Herrera  remarks  further  of  the  Mayas,  that  "they  were  wont 
to  observe  their  pedigrees  very  much,  and  therefore  thought 

themselves  all  related,  and  were  helpful  to  one  another 

They  did  not  marry  mothers,  or  sisters-in-law,  nor  any  that 
bore  the  same  name  as  their  father,  which  was  looked  upon  as 
unlawful."^     The  pedigree  of  an  Indian  under  their  system  of 

'   General  History  of  America,  Lond.  ed. ,  1726.      Stevens'  Trans.,  iii,  299. 
*  Ih.,  iv,  171.  '  lb.,  iii,  203.  ■•  lb.,  iv,  33. 

^  Gene7-al  History  of  America,  iv,  171. 


1 82  ANCIENT  SOCIETY. 

consanguinity  could  have  no  significance  apart  from  a  gens; 
but  leaving  this  out  of  view,  there  was  "no  possible  way,  under 
Indian  institutions,  by  which  a  father  and  his  children  could 
bear  the  same  name  except  through  a  gens,  which  conferred  a 
common  gentile  name  upon  all  its  members.  It  would  also  re- 
quire descent  in  the  male  line  to  bring  father  and  children  into 
the  same  gens.  The  statement  shows,  moreover,  that  intermar- 
riage in  the  gens  among  the  Mayas  was  prohibited.  Assuming 
the  correctness  of  Herrera's  words,  it  is  proof  conclusive  of  the 
existence  of  gentes  among  the  Mayas,  with  descent  in  the  male 
line.  Tylor,  in  his  valuable  work  on  the  Early  History  of  Man- 
kind, which  is  a  repository  of  widely-drawn  and  well-digested 
ethnological  information,  cites  the  same  fact  from  another 
source,  with  the  following  remarks:  "The  analogy  of  the  North 
American  Indian  custom  is  therefore  with  that  of  the  Austral- 
ian in  making  clanship  on  the  female  side  a  bar  to  marriage,  but 
if  we  go  down  further  south  into  Central  America,  the  reverse 
custom,  as  in  China,  makes  its  appearance.  Diego  de  Landa 
says  of  the  people  of  Yucatan,  that  no  one  took  a  wife  of  his 
name,  on  the  father's  side,  for  this  was  a  very  vile  thing  among 
them;  but  they  might  marry  cousins  german  on  the  mother's 
side."i 

XI.  South  American  Indian  Tribes. 
Traces  of  the  gens  have  been  found  in  all  parts  of  South 
America,  as  well  as  the  actual  presence  of  the  Ganowanian  sys- 
tem of  consanguinity,  but  the  subject  has  not  been  fully  inves- 
tigated. Speaking  of  the  numerous  tribes  of  the  Andes  brought 
by  the  Incas  under  a  species  of  confederation,  Herrera  observes 
that  "  this  variety  of  tongues  proceeded  from  the  nations  being  di- 
vided into  races,  tribes,  or  clans. "^  Here  in  the  clans  the  ex- 
istence of  gentes  is  recognized.  Mr.  Tylor,  discussing  the  rules 
with  respect  to  marriage  and  descent,  remarks  that  "further 
south,  below  the  Isthmus,  both  the  clanship  and  the  prohibition 
re-appear  on  the  female  side.  Bernau  says  that  among  the  Ar- 
rawaks  of  British  Guiana,  'Caste  is  derived  from  the  mother, 
and  children  are  allowed  to  marry  into  -their  father's  family, 

'  Early  History  of  Mankind,  p.  287. 
*  Ge7i.  Hist,  of  Anier.,  iv,  231. 


GENTES  IN  OTHER  TRIBES.  1 83 

but  not  into  that  of  their  mother.'  Lastly,  Father  Martin 
Dobrizhoffer  says  that  the  Guaranis  avoid,  as  highly  criminal, 
marriage  with  the  most  distant  relations;  and  speaking  of  the 
Abipones,  he  makes  the  following  statement:  .  .  .  'The  Abi- 
pones,  instructed  by  nature  and  the  example  of  their  ancestors, 
abhor  the  very  thought  of  marrying  any  one  related  to  them 
by  the  most  distant  tie  of  relationship.'"^  These  references  to 
the  social  system  of  the  aborigines  are  vague;  but  in  the  light 
of  the  facts  already  presented  the  existence  of  gentes  with  descent 
in  the  female  line,  and  with  intermarriage  in  the  gens  prohib- 
ited, renders  them  intelligible.  Brett  remarks  of  the  Indian 
tribes  in  Guiana  that  they  "are  divided  into  families,  each  of 
which  has  a  distinct  name,  as  the  Siwidi,  Karuafudi,  Onisidi, 
etc.  Unlike  our  families,  these  all  descend  in  the  female  line, 
and  no  individual  of  either  sex  is  allowed  to  marry  another  of 
the  same  family  name.  Thus  a  woman  of  the  Siwidi  family 
bears  the  same  name  as  her  mother,  but  neither  her  father  nor 
her  husband  can  be  of  that  family.  Her  children  and  the  chil- 
dren of  her  daughters  will  also  be  called  Siwidi,  but  both  her 
sons  and  daughters  are  prohibited  from  an  alliance  with  any  in- 
dividual bearing  the  same  name;  though  they  may  marry  into 
the  family  of  their  father,  if  they  choose.  These  customs  are 
strictly  observed,  and  any  breach  of  them  would  be  considered 
as  wicked."'^  In  the  family  of  this  writer  may  at  once  be 
recognized  the  gens  in  its  archaic  form.  All  the  South  Amer- 
ican tribes  above  named,  with  the  exception  of  the  Andean, 
were  when  discovered  either  in  the  Lower  Status  of  barbarism, 
or  in  the  Status  of  savagery.  Many  of  the  Peruvian  tribes  con- 
centrated under  the  government  established  by  the  Inca  Village 
Indians  were  in  the  Lower  Status  of  barbarism,  if  an  opinion 
may  be  formed  from  the  imperfect  description  of  their  domes- 
tic institutions  found  in  Garcillasso  de  la  Vega. 

To  the  Village  Indians  of  North  and  South  America,  whose 
indigenous  culture  had  advanced  them  far  into,  and  near  the 
end  of,  the  Middle  Period  of  barbarism,  our  attention  naturally 
turns  for  the  transitional  history  of  the  gentes.     The  archaic 

^  Early  History  of  Mankind,  p.  287. 

*  Indian  Tribes  of  Guiatia,  p.  98 ;  cited  by  Lubbock,  Origin  of  Civilization,  p.  98. 


1 84  ANCIEN T  SOCIE T  Y. 

constitution  of  the  gens  has  been  shown;  its  latest  phases  re- 
main to  be  presented  in  the  gentes  of  the  Greeks  and  Romans; 
but  the  intermediate  changes,  both  of  descent  and  inheritance, 
which  occurred  in  the  Middle  Period,  are  essential  to  a  com- 
plete history  of  the  gentile  organization.  Our  information  is 
quite  ample  with  respect  to  the  earlier  and  later  condition  of 
this  great  institution,  but  defective  with  respect  to  the  transi- 
tional stage.  Where  the  gentes  are  found  in  any  tribe  of  man- 
kind in  their  latest  form,  their  remote  ancestors  must  have  pos- 
sessed them  in  the  archaic  form;  but  historical  criticism  de- 
mands affirmative  proofs  rather  than  deductions.  These  proofs 
once  existed  among  the  Village  Indians.  We  are  now  well 
assured  that  their  system  of  government  was  social  and  not  po- 
litical. The  upper  members  of  the  series,  namely,  the  tribe 
and  the  confederacy,  meet  us  at  many  points;  with  positive  evi- 
dence of  the  gens,  the  unit  of  the  system,  in  a  number  of  the 
tribes  of  Village  Indians.  But  we  are  not  able  to  place  our 
hands  upon  the  gentes  among  the  Village  Indians  in  general 
with  the  same  precise  information  afforded  by  the  tribes  in  the 
Lower  Status  of  barbarism.  The  golden  opportunity  was  pre- 
sented to  the  Spanish  conquerers  and  colonists,  and  lost,  from 
apparent  inability  to  understand  a  condition  of  society  from 
which  civilized  man  had  so  far  departed  in  his  onward  progress. 
W^ithout  a  knowledge  of  the  unit  of  their  social  system,  which 
impressed  its  character  upon  the  whole  organism  of  society,  the 
Spanish  histories  fail  entirely  in  the  portrayal  of  their  govern- 
mental institutions. 

A  glance  at  the  remains  of  ancient  architecture  in  Central 
America  and  Peru  sufficiently  proves  that  the  Middle  Period  of 
barbarism  was  one  of  great  progress  in  human  development,  of 
growing  knowledge,  and  of  expanding  intelligence.  It  was 
followed  by  a  still  more  remarkable  period  in  the  Eastern 
hemisphere  after  the  invention  of  the  process  of  making  iron 
had  given  that  final  great  impulse  to  human  progress  which 
was  to  bear  a  portion  of  mankind  into  civilization.  Our  ap- 
preciation of  the  grandeur  of  man's  career  in  the  Later  Pe- 
riod of  barbarism,  when  inventions  and  discoveries  multiplied 
with  such  rapidity,  would  be  intensified  by  an  accurate  knowl- 


GENTES  IN  OTHER  TRIBES.  1 85 

edge  of  the  condition  of  society  in  the  Middle  Period,  so  re- 
markably exemplified  by  the  Village  Indians.  By  a  great  ef- 
fort, attended  with  patient  labor,  it  may  yet  be  possible  to  re- 
cover a  large  portion  at  least  of  the  treasures  of  knowledge 
which  have  been  allowed  to  disappear.  Upon  our  present  in- 
formation the  conclusion  is  warrantable  that  the  American  In- 
dian tribes  were  universally  organized  in  gentes  at  the  epoch 
of  European  discovery,  the  few  exceptions  found  not  being 
sufficient  to  disturb  the  general  rule. 


CHAPTER  VII. 

THE   AZTEC   CONFEDERACY. 

Misconception  of  Aztec  Society. — Condition  of  Advancement. — Na- 
HUATI.AC  Tribes. — Their  Settlement  in  Mexico. — Pueblo  of  Mexico 
FOUNDED,  A.  D. ,  1325. — Aztec  Confederacy  established,  A.  D.,  1426.— 
Extent  of  Territorial  Domination. — Probable  Number  of  the  People. 
— Whether  or  not  the  Aztecs  were  organized  in  Gentes  and  Phratries. — 
The  Council  of  Chiefs. — Its  probable  Functions. — Office  held  by  Mon- 
tezuma.— Elective  in  Tenure. — Deposition  of  Montezuma. — Probable 
Functions  of  the  Office. — Aztec  Institutions  essentially  Democraticai- 
— The  Government  a  Military  Democracy. 

The  Spanish  adventurers,  who  captured  the  Pueblo  of  Mex- 
ico, adopted  the  erroneous  theory  that  the  Aztec  government 
was  a  monarchy,  analogous  in  essential  respects  to  existing 
monarchies  in  Europe.  This  opinion  was  adopted  generally 
by  the  early  Spanish  writers,  without  investigating  minutely 
the  structure  and  principles  of  the  Aztec  social  system.  A 
terminology  not  in  agreement  with  their  institutions  came  in 
with  this  misconception  which  has  vitiated  the  historical  narra- 
tive nearly  as  completely  as  though  it  were,  in  the  main,  a 
studied  fabrication.  With  the  capture  of  the  only  stronghold 
the  Aztecs  possessed,  their  governmental  fabric  was  destroyed, 
Spanish  rule  was  substituted  in  its  place,  and  the  subject  of 
their  internal  organization  and  polity  was  allowed  substantially 
to  pass  into  oblivion.^ 

1  The  histories  of  Spanish  America  may  be  trusted  in  whatever  relates  to  the 
acts  of  the  Spaniards,  and  to  the  acts  and  personal  characteristics  of  the  Indians ; 
in  whatever  relates  to  their  weapons,  implements  and  utensils,  fabrics,  food  and 


THE  AZTEC  CONFEDERACY,  187 

The  Aztecs  and  their  confederate  tribes  were  ignorant  of  iron 
and  consequently  without  iron  tools;  they  had  no  money,  and 
traded  by  barter  of  commodities;  but  they  worked  the  native 
metals,  cultivated  by  irrigation,  manufactured  coarse  fabrics  of 
cotton,  constructed  joint-tenement  houses  of  adobe-bricks  and 
of  stone,  and  made  earthenware  of  excellent  quality.  They 
had,  therefore,  attained  to  the  Middle  Status  of  barbarism. 
They  still  held  their  lands  in  common,  lived  in  large  households 
composed  of  a  number  of  related  families;  and,  as  there  are 
strong  reasons  for  believing,  practiced  communism  in  living  in 
the  household.  It  is  rendered  reasonably  certain  that  they  had 
but  one  prepared  meal  each  day,  a  dinner;  at  which  they  sep- 
arated, the  men  eating  first  and  by  themselves,  and  the  women 
and  children  afterwards.  Having  neither  tables  nor  chairs  for 
dinner  service  they  had  not  learned  to  eat  their  single  daily 
meal  in  the  manner  of  civilized  nations.  These  features  of  their 
social  condition  show  sufficiently  their  relative  status  of  ad- 
vancement. 

In  connection  with  the  Village  Indians  of  other  parts  of  Mex- 
ico and  Central  America,  and  of  Peru,  they  afforded  the  best 
exemplification  of  this  condition  of  ancient  society  then  exist- 
ing on  the  earth.  They  represented  one  of  the  great  stages  of 
progress  toward  civilization  in  which  the  institutions  derived 
from  a  previous  ethnical  period  are  seen  in  higher  advance- 
ment, and  which  were  to  be  transmitted,  in  the  course  of  hu- 
man experience,  to  an  ethnical  condition  still  higher,  and  un- 
dergo still  further  development  before  civilization  was  possible. 
But  the  Village  Indians  were  not  destined  to  attain  the  Upper 
Status  of  barbarism  so  well  represented  by  the  Homeric 
Greeks. 

The  Indian  pueblos  in  the  valley  of  Mexico  revealed  to 
Europeans  a  lost  condition  of  ancient  society,  which  was  so 
remarkable  and  peculiar  that  it  aroused  at  the  time  an  insatia- 
ble curiosity.      More  volumes  have  been  written,  in  the  propor- 

raiment,  and  things  of  a  similar  character.  But  in  whatever  relates  to  Indian 
society  and  government,  their  social  relations,  and  plan  of  life,  they  are  nearly 
worthless,  because  they  learned  nothing  and  knew  nothing  of  either.  We  are  at 
full  liberty  to  reject  them  in  these  respects  and  commence  anew  ;  using  any  facts 
they  may  contain  which  harmonize  with  what  is  known  of  Indian  society. 


1 8 8  ANCIENT  SOCIE T  V. 

tion  of  ten  to  one,  upon  the  Mexican  aborigines  and  the  Span- 
ish Conquest,  than  upon  any  other  people  of  the  same  advance- 
ment, or  upon  any  event  of  the  same  importance.  And  yet, 
there  is  no  people  concerning  whose  institutions  and  plan  of 
life  so  little  is  accurately  known.  The  remarkable  spectacle 
presented  so  inflamed  the  imagination  that  romance  swept  the 
field,  and  has  held  it  to  the  present  hour.  The  failure  to  ascer- 
tain the  structure  of  Aztec  society  which  resulted  was  a  serious 
loss  to  the  history  of  mankind.  It  should  not  be  made  a  cause 
of  reproach  to  any  one,  but  rather  for  deep  regret.  Even  that 
which  has  been  written,  with  such  painstaking  industry,  may 
prove  useful  in  some  future  attempt  to  reconstruct  the  history 
of  the  Aztec  confederacy.  Certain  facts  remain  of  a  positive 
kind  from  which  other  facts  may  be  deduced;  so  that  it  is  not 
improbable  that  a  well-directed  original  investigation  may  yet 
recover,  measurably  at  least,  the  essential  features  of  the  Aztec 
social  system. 

The  "kingdom  of  Mexico"  as  it  stands  in  the  early  histories, 
and  the  "empire  of  Mexico"  as  it  appears  in  the  later,  is  a  fic- 
tion of  the  imagination.  At  the  time  there  was  a  seeming 
foundation  for  describing  the  government  as  a  monarchy,  in  the 
absence  of  a  correct  knowledge  of  their  institutions;  but  the 
misconception  can  no  longer  be  defended.  That  which  the 
Spaniards  found  was  simply  a  confederacy  of  three  Indian 
tribes,  of  which  the  counterpart  existed  in  all  parts  of  the  con- 
tinent, and  they  had  no  occasion  in  their  descriptions  to  ad- 
vance a  step  beyond  this  single  fact.  The  government  was  ad- 
ministered by  a  council  of  chiefs,  with  the  co-operation  of  a 
general  commander  of  the  military  bands.  It  was  a  govern- 
ment of  two  powers;  the  civil  being  represented  by  the  coun- 
cil, and  the  military  by  a  principal  war-chief  Since  the  insti- 
tutions of  the  confederate  tribes  were  essentially  democratical, 
the  government  may  be  called  a  military  democracy,  if  a  des- 
ignation more  special  than  confederacy  is  required. 

Three  tribes,  the  Aztecs  or  Mexicans,  the  Tezcucans  and 
the  Tlacopans,  were  united  in  the  Aztec  confederacy,  which 
gives  the  two  upper  members  of  the  organic  social  scries. 
Whether  or  not  they  possessed  the  first  and  the  second,  namely, 


THE  AZTEC  CONFEDERACY.  1 89 

the  gens  and  the  phratry,  does  not  appear  in  a  definite  form 
in  any  of  the  Spanish  writers;  but  they  have  vaguely  described 
certain  institutions  whieli  can  only  be  understood  by  supplying 
the  lost  members  of  the  series.  Whilst  the  phratry  is  not  essen- 
tial, it  is  otherwise  with  the  gens,  because  it  is  the  unit  upon 
which  the  social  system  rests.  Without  entering  the  vast  and 
unthreadable  labyrinth  of  Aztec  affairs  as  they  now  stand 
historically,  I  shall  venture  to  invite  attention  to  a  {q.\\  par- 
ticulars only  of  the  Aztec  social  system,  which  may  tend  to 
illustrate  its  real  character.  Before  doing  this,  the  relations  of 
the  confederated  to  surrounding  tribes  should  be  noticed. 

The  Aztecs  were  one  of  seven  kindred  tribes  who  had  mi- 
grated from  the  north  and  settled  in  and  near  the  valley  of 
Mexico;  and  who  were  among  the  historical  tribes  of  that 
country  at  the  epoch  of  the  Spanish  Conquest.  They  called 
themselves  collectively  the  Nahuatlacs  in  their  traditions. 
Acosta,  who  visited  Mexico  in  1585,  and  whose  work  was  pub- 
lished at  Seville  in  1589,  has  given  the  current  native  tradition 
of  their  migrations,  one  after  the  other,  from  Aztlan,  with  their 
names  and  places  of  settlement.  He  states  the  order  of  their 
arrival  as  follows:  i.  Sochimilcas,  "Nation  of  the  Seeds  of 
Flowers,"  who  settled  upon  Lake  Xochimilco,  on  the  south 
slope  of  the  valley  of  Mexico;  2.  Chalcas,  "People  of  Mouths," 
who  came  long  after  the  former  and  settled  near  them,  on  Lake 
Chalco;  3.  Tepanecans,  "People  of  the  Bridge,"  who  settled 
at  Azcopozalco,  west  of  Lake  Tezcuco,  on  the  western  slope  of 
the  valley;  4.  Culhuas,  "A  Crooked  People,"  who  settled  on 
the  east  side  of  Lake  Tezcuco,  and  were  afterwards  knowri  as 
Tezcucans;  5.  Tlatluicans,  "Men  of  the  Sierra,"  who,  finding 
the  valley  appropriated  around  the  lake,  passed  over  the  Sierra 
southward  and  settled  upon  the  other  side;  6.  Tlascalans, 
"Men  of  Bread,"  who,  after  living  for  a  time  with  the  Tepane- 
cans, finally  settled  beyond  the  valley  eastward,  at  Tlascala; 
7.  The  Aztecs,  who  came  last  and  occupied  the  site  of  the  pres- 
ent city  of  Mexico.^  Acosta  further  observes  that  they  came 
"from   far    countries  which   lie  toward  the  north,  where  now 

1   The  Natural  and  Moral  History  of  the  East  and  West  Indies,  Lond.  ed. ,  1604, 
Grimstone's  Trans.,  pp.  497-504. 


190 


ANCIENT  SOCIETY. 


they  have  found  a  kingdom  which  they  call  New  Mexico."^ 
The  same  tradition  is  given  by  Herrera,^  and  also  by  Clavigero.^ 
It  will  be  noticed  that  the  Tlacopans  are  not  mentioned. 
They  were,  in  all  probability,  a  subdivision  of  the  Tepanecans 
who  remained  in  the  original  area  of  that  tribe,  while  the  re- 
mainder seem  to  have  removed  to  a  territory  immediately  south 
of  the  Tlascalans,  where  they  were  found  under  the  name  of 
the  Tepeacas.  The  latter  had  the  same  legend  of  the  seven 
caves,  and  spoke  a  dialect  of  the  Nahuatlac  language.^ 

This  tradition   embodies  one  significant  fact  of  a  kind  that 
\    could  not  have  been  invented;  namely,  that  the  seven  tribes 
\    were  of  immediate  common  origin,  the  fact  being  confirmed  by 
their  dialects;  and  a  second  fact  of  importance,  that  they  came 
,  from  the  north.      It  shows  that  they  were  originally  one  people, 
i  who  had  fallen  into  seven  and  more  tribes  by  the  natural  proc- 
ess  of  segmentation.      Moreover,  it  was  this  same   fact  which 
rendered  the  Aztec  confederacy  possible  as  well  as  probable,  a 
common  language  being  the  essential  basis  of  such   organiza- 
tions. 

The  Aztecs  found  the  best  situations  in  the  valley  occupied, 
and  after  several  changes  of  position  they  finally  settled  upon 
a  small  expanse  of  dry  land  in  the  midst  of  a  marsh  bordered 
with  fields  of  pedregal  and  with  natural  ponds.  Here  they 
founded  the  celebrated  pueblo  of  Mexico  (Tenochtitlan),  A.  D. 
1325,  according  to  Clavigero,  one  hundred  and  ninety- six 
years  prior  to  the  Spanish  Conquest.^  They  were  few  in  num- 
ber and  poor  in  condition.  But  fortunately  for  them,  the  out- 
let'of  Lakes  Xochimilco  and  Chalco  and  rivulets  from  the  west- 
ern hills  flowed  past  their  site  into  Lake  Tezcuco.  Having  the 
sagacity  to  perceive  the  advantages  of  the  location  they  suc- 
ceeded, by  means  of  causeways  and  dikes,  in  surrounding  their 
pueblo  with  an  artificial  pond  of  large  extent,  the  waters  being 
furnished  from  the  sources  named ;  and  the  level  of  Lake  Tez- 
cuco being  higher  then  than  at  present,  it  gave  them,  when 

1  The  Natural  and  Moral  History  of  the  East  and  West  Indies,  p.  499. 

2  General  History  of  America,  I,oncl.  ed. ,  1725,  Stevens' Trans.,  iii,  188. 
^  History  of  Mexico,  Philadelphia  ed.,  1817,  Cullen's  Trans.,  i,  119. 

■*  Herrera,  Hist,  of  Amer.,  iii,  no. 
6  History  of  Mexico,  loc.  cit.,  i,  162. 


THE  AZTEC  CONFEDERACY.  I9I 

the  whole  work  was  completed,  the  most  secure  position  of  any 
tribe  in  the  valley.  The  mechanical  engineering  by  which  they 
accomplished  this  result  was  one  of  the  greatest  achievements 
of  the  Aztecs,  and  one  without  which  they  would  not  probably 
have  risen  above  the  level  of  the  surrounding  tribes.  Inde- 
pendence and  prosperity  followed,  and  in  time  a  controlling  in- 
fluence over  the  valley  tribes.  Such  was  the  manner,  and  so 
recent  the  time  of  founding  the  pueblo  according  to  Aztec  tra- 
ditions which  may  be  accepted  as  substantially  trustworthy. 

At  the  epoch  of  the  Spanish  Conquest  five  of  the  seven 
tribes,  namely,  the  Aztecs,  Tczcucans,  Tlacopans,  Sochimilcas, 
and  Chalcans  resided  in  the  valley,  which  was  an  area  of  quite 
limited  dimensions,  about  equal  to  the  state  of  Rhode  Island. 
It  was  a  mountain  or  upland  basin  having  no  outlet,  oval  in 
form,  being  longest  from  north  to  south,  one  hundred  and 
twenty  miles  in  circuit,  and  embracing  about  sixteen  hundred 
square  miles  excluding  the  surface  covered  by  water.  The 
valley,  as  described,  is  surrounded  by  a  series  of  hills,  one 
range  rising  above  another  with  depressions  between,  encom- 
passing the  valley  with  a  mountain  barrier.  The  tribes  named 
resided  in  some  thirty  pueblos,  more  or  less,  of  which  that  of 
Mexico  was  the  largest.  There  is  no  evidence  that  any  con- 
siderable portion  of  these  tribes  had  colonized  outside  of  the 
valley  and  the  adjacent  hill-slopes;  but,  on  the  contrary,  there 
is  abundant  evidence  that  the  remainder  of  modern  Mexico 
was  then  occupied  by  numerous  tribes  who  spoke  languages 
different  from  the  Nahuatlac,  and  the  majority  of  whom  were 
independent.  The  Tlascalans,  the  Cholulans,  a  supposed  sub- 
division of  the  former,  the  Tepeacas,  the  Huexotzincos,  the 
Meztitlans,  a  supposed  subdivision  of  the  Tezcucans,  and  the 
Tlatluicans  were  the  remaining  Nahuatlac  tribes  living  without 
the  valley  of  Mexico,  all  of  whom  were  independent  excepting 
the  last,  and  the  Tepeacas.  A  large  number  of  other  tribes, 
forming  some  seventeen  territorial  groups,  more  or  less,  and 
speaking  as  many  stock  languages,  held  the  remainder  of  Mex- 
ico. They  present,  in  their  state  of  disintegration  and  inde- 
pendence, a  nearly  exact  repetition  of  the  tribes  of  the  United 
States  and  British  America,  at  the  time  of  their  discovery,  a 
century  or  more  later. 


192 


ANCIENT  SOCIETY. 


Prior  to  A.  D.  1426,  when  the  Aztec  confederacy  was  form- 
ed, very  Httle  had  occurred  in  the  affairs  of  the  valley  tribes  of 
historical  importance.  They  were  disunited  and  belligerent, 
and  without  influence  beyond  their  immediate  localities. 
About  this  time  the  superior  position  of  the  Aztecs  began  to 
manifest  its  results  in  a  preponderance  of  numbers  and  of 
strength.  Under  their  war-chief,  Itzcoatl,  the  previous  su- 
premacy of  the  Tezcucans  and  Tlacopans  was  overthrown,  and 
a  league  or  confederacy  was  established  as  a  consequence  of 
their  previous  wars  against  each  other.  It  was  an  alliance  be- 
tween the  three  tribes,  offensive  and  defensive,  with  stipulations 
for  the  division  among  them,  in  certain  proportions,  of  the 
spoils,  and  the  after  tributes  of  subjugated  tribes.^  These  trib- 
utes, which  consisted  of  the  manufactured  fabrics  and  horti- 
cultural products  of  the  villages  subdued,  seem  to  have  been 
enforced  with  system,  and  with  rigor  of  exaction. 

The  plan  of  organization  of  this  confederacy  has  been  lost. 
From  the  absence  of  particulars  it  is  now  difficult  to  determine 
whether  it  was  simply  a  league  to  be  continued  or  dissolved  at 
pleasure;  or  a  consolidated  organization,  Hke  that  of  the  Iro- 
quois, in  which  the  parts  were  adjusted  to  each  other  in  per- 
manent and  definite  relations.  Each  tribe  was  independent  in 
whatever  related  to  local  self-government;  but  the  three  were 
externally  one  people  in  whatever  related  to  aggression  or  de- 
fense. While  each  tribe  had  its  own  council  of  chiefs,  and  its 
own  head  war-chief,  the  war-chief  of  the  Aztecs  was  the  com- 
mander-in-chief of  the  confederate  bands.  This  may  be  in- 
ferred from  the  fact  that  the  Tezcucans  and  Tlacopans  had  a 
voice  either  in  the  election  or  in  the  confirmation  of  the  Aztec 
war-chief  The  acquisition  of  the  chief  command  by  the  Az- 
tecs tends  to  show  that  their  influence  predominated  in  estab- 
lishing the  terms  upon  which  the  tribes  confederated. 

Nezahualcojotl  had  been  deposed,  or  at  least  dispossessed  of 
his  office,  as  principal  war-chief  of  the  Tezcucans,  to  which  he 
was  at  this  time  (1426)  restored  by  Aztec  procurement.  The 
event  may  be  taken  as  the  date  of  the  formation  of  the  con- 
federacy or  league  whichever  it  was. 

'  Clavigero,  Hist,  of  Mex,,  i,  229:  Henera,  iii,  312:  Prescott,  Conq.  of  Mex., 
i,  18. 


THE  AZTEC  CONFEDERACY. 


193 


Before  discussing  the  limited  number  of  facts  which  tend  to 
illustrate  the  character  of  this  organization,  a  brief  reference 
should  be  made  to  what  the  confederacy  accomplished  in  ac- 
quiring territorial  domination  during  the  short  period  of  its 
existence. 

From  A.  D.  1426  to  1520,  a  period  of  ninety-four  years, 
the  confederacy  was  engaged  in  frequent  wars  with  adjacent 
tribes,  and  particularly  with  the  feeble  Village  Indians  south- 
ward from  the  valley  of  Mexico  to  the  Pacific,  and  thence  east- 
ward well  toward  Guatemala.  They  began  with  those  nearest 
in  position  whom  they  overcame,  through  superior  numbers 
and  concentrated  action,  and  subjected  to  tribute.  The  villages 
in  this  area  were  numerous  but  small,  consisting  in  many  cases 
of  a  single  large  structure  of  adobe-brick  or  of  stone,  and  in 
some  cases  of  several  such  structures  grouped  together.  These 
joint-tenement  houses  interposed  serious  hinderances  to  Aztec 
conquest,  but  they  did  not  prove  insuperable.  These  forays 
were  continued  from  time  to  time  for  the  avowed  object  of 
gathering  spoil,  imposing  tribute,  and  capturing  prisoners  for 
sacrifice  ; '  until  the  principal  tribes  within  the  area  named,  with 
some  exceptions,  were  subdued  and  made  tributary,  including 
the  scattered  villages  of  the  Totonacs  near  the  present  Vera 
Cruz. 

No  attempt  was  made  to  incorporate  these  tribes  in  the 
Aztec   confederacy,   which   the   barrier  of  language   rendered 

1  The  Aztecs,  like  the  Northern  Indians,  neither  exchanged  or  released  prisoners. 
Among  the  latter  the  stake  was  the  doom  of  the  captive  unless  saved  by  adoption; 
but  among  the  former,  under  the  teachings  of  the  priesthood,  the  unfortunate 
captive  was  offered  as  a  sacrifice  to  the  principal  god  they  worshiped.  To  utihze 
the  life  of  the  prisoner  in  the  service  of  the  gods,  a  life  forfeited  by  the  imme- 
morial usages  of  savages  and  barbarians,  was  the  high  conception  of  the  first 
hierarchy  in  the  order  of  institutions.  An  organized  priesthood  first  appeared 
among  the  American  aborigines  in  the  Middle  Status  of  barbarism;  and  it  stands 
connected  with  the  invention  of  idols  and  human  sacrifices,  as  a  means  of  acquiring 
authority  over  mankind  through  the  religious  sentiments.  It  probably  has  a 
similar  history  in  the  principal  tribes  of  mankind.  Three  successive  usages  with 
respect  to  captives  appeared  in  the  three  sub-periods  of  barbarism.  In  the  first  he 
was  burned  at  the  stake,  in  the  second  he  was  sacrificed  to  the  gods,  and  in  the 
third  he  was  made  a  slave.  All  alike  they  proceeded  upon  the  principle  that  the 
life  of  the  prisoner  was  forfeited  to  his  captor.  This  principle  became  so  deeply 
seated  in  the  human  mind  that  civilization  and  Christianity  combined  were  required 
for  its  displacement. 


194 


ANCIENT  SOCIETY. 


impossible  under  their  institutions.  They  were  left  under  the 
government  of  their  own  chiefs,  and  to  the  practice  of  their 
own  usages  and  customs.  In  some  cases  a  collector  of  tribute 
resided  among  them.  The  barren  results  of  these  conquests 
reveal  the  actual  character  of  their  institutions.  A  domination 
of  the  strong  over  the  weak  for  no  other  object  than  to  enforce 
an  unwilling  tribute,  did  not  even  tend  to  the  formation  of  a 
nation.  If  organized  in  gentes,  there  was  no  way  for  an  in- 
dividual to  become  a  member  of  the  government  except 
I  through  a  gens,  and  no  way  for  the  admission  of  a  gens  except 
'  by  its  incorporation  among  the  Aztec,  Tezcucan,  or  Tlacopan 
gentes.  The  plan  ascribed  to  Romulus  of  removing  the  gentes 
of  conquered  Latin  tribes  to  Rome  might  have  been  resorted 
to  by  the  Aztec  confederacy  with  respect  to  the  tribes  over- 
run ;  but  they  were  not  sufficiently  advanced  to  form  such  a 
conception,  even  though  the  barrier  of  language  could  have 
been  obviated.  Neither  could  colonists  for  the  same  reason,  if 
sent  among  them,  have  so  far  assimilated  the  conquered  tribes 
as  to  prepare  them  for  incorporation  in  the  Aztec  social 
system.  As  it  was,  the  confederacy  gained  no  strength  by  the 
terrorism  it  created  ;  or  by  holding  these  tribes  under  burdens, 
inspired  with  enmity  and  ever  ready  to  revolt.  It  seems,  how- 
[  ever,  that  they  used  the  military  bands  of  subjugated  tribes  in 
\  some  cases,  and  shared  with  them  the  spoils.  All  the  Aztecs 
could  do,  after  forming  the  confederacy,  was  to  expand  it  over 
the  remaining  Nahuatlac  tribes.  This  they  were  unable  to  ac- 
complish. The  Xochimilcas  and  Chalcans  were  not  constituent 
members  of  the  confederacy,  but  they  enjoyed  a  nominal  in- 
dependence, though  tributary. 

This  is  about  all  that  can  now  be  discovered  of  the  material 
basis  of  the  so-called  kingdom  or  empire  of  the  Aztecs.  The 
confederacy  was  confronted  by  hostile  and  independent  tribes 
on  the  west,  northwest,  northeast,  east,  and  southeast  sides: 
as  witness,  the  Mechoacans  on  the  west,  the  Otomies  on  the 
northwest,  (scattered  bands  of  the  Otomies  near  the  valley  had 
been  placed  under  tribute),  the  Chichimecs  or  wild  tribes  north 
of  the  Otomies,  the  Mcztitlans  on  the  northeast,  the  Tlascalans 
on  the  east,  the  Cholulans  and  Huexotzincos  on  the  southeast 


THE  AZTEC  CONFEDERACY.  I95 

and  beyond  them  the  tribes  of  the  Tabasco,  the  tribes  of 
Chiapas,  and  the  Zapotecs.  In  these  several  directions  the 
dominion  of  the  Aztec  confederacy  did  not  extend  a  hundred 
miles  beyond  the  valley  of  Mexico,  a  portion  of  which  sur- 
rounding area  was  undoubtedly  neutral  ground  separating  the 
confederacy  from  perpetual  enemies.  Out  of  such  limited 
materials  the  kingdom  of  Mexico  of  the  Spanish  chronicles 
was  fabricated,  and  afterwards  magnified  into  the  Aztec  empire 
of  current  history. 

A  few  words  seem  to  be  necessary  concerning  the  popula- 
tion of  the  valley  and  of  the  pueblo  of  Mexico.  No  means  ex- 
ist for  ascertaining  the  number  of  the  people  in  the  five 
Nahuatlac  tribes  who  inhabited  the  valley.  Any  estimate 
must  be  conjectural.  As  a  conjecture  then,  based  upon  what 
is  known  of  their  horticulture,  their  means  of  subsistence,  their 
institutions,  their  limited  area,  and  not  forgetting  the  tribute 
y  they  received,  two  hundred  and  fifty  thousand  persons  in  the 
1  aggregate  would  probably  be  an  excessive  estimate.  It  would 
give  about  a  hundred  and  sixty  persons  to  the  square  mile, 
equal  to  nearly  twice  the  present  average,  population  of  the 
state  of  New  York,  and  about  equal  to  the  average  popula- 
tion of  Rhode  Island.  It  is  difficult  to  perceive  what  suffi- 
cient reason  can  be  assigned  for  so  large  a  number  of  in- 
habitants in  all  the  villages  within  the  valley,  said  to  have 
been  from  thirty  to  forty.  Those  who  claim  a  higher  number 
will  be  bound  to  show  how  a  barbarous  people,  without 
flocks  and  herds,  and  without  field  agriculture,  could  have 
sustained  in  equal  areas  a  larger  number  of  inhabitants  than 
a  civilized  people  can  now  maintain  armed  with  these  ad- 
vantages. It  cannot  be  shown  for  the  simple  reason  that  it 
could  not  have  been  true.  Out  of  this  population  thirty  thou- 
sand may,  perhaps,  be  assigned  to  the  pueblo  of  Mexico.^ 

1  There  is  some  difference  in  the  estimates  of  the  population  of  Mexico  found  in 
the  Spanish  histories ;  but  several  of  them  concurred  in  the  number  of  houses, 
which,  strange  to  say,  is  placed  at  sixty  thousand.  Zuazo,  who  visited  Mexico  in 
1521,  wrote  sixty  thousand  inhabitants  (Prescott,  Conq.  of  Alex.,  ii,  1 12,  note); 
the  Anonymous  Conqueror,  who  accompanied  Cortes  also  wrote  sixty  thousand 
inhabitants,  "soixante  mille  habitans "  (i^.  Ternaiix-Compans,  x,  92) ;  but  Go- 
mora  and  Martyr  wrote  sixty  thousand  houses,  and  this  estimate  has  been  adopted 


196  ANCIENT  SOCIETY. 

It  will  be  unnecessary  to  discuss  the  position  and  relations 
of  the  valley  tribes  beyond  the  suggestions  made.  The  Aztec 
monarchy  should  be  dismissed  from  American  aboriginal  histo- 
ry, not  only  as  delusive,  but  as  a  misrepresentation  of  the 
Indians,  who  had  neither  developed  nor  invented  monarchical 
institutions.  The  government  they  formed  was  a  confederacy 
of  tribes,  and  nothing  more;  and  probably  not  equal  in  plan 
and  symmetry  with  that  of  the  Iroquois.  In  dealing  with  this 
organization,  War-chief,  Sachem,  and  Chief  will  be  sufficient  to 
distinguish  their  official  persons. 

The  pueblo  of  Mexico  was  the  largest  in  America.  Ro- 
mantically situated  in  the  midst  of  an  artificial  lake,  its  large 
joint-tenement  houses  plastered  over  with  gypsum,  which 
made  them  a  brilliant  white,  and  approached  by  causeways,  it 
presented  to  the  Spaniards,  in  the  distance,  a  striking  and 
enchanting  spectacle.  It  was  a  revelation  of  an  ancient  society 
lying  two  ethnical  periods  back  of  European  society,  and 
eminently  calculated,  from  its  orderly  plan  of  life,  to  awaken 
curiosity  and  inspire  enthusiasm.  A  certain  amount  of  ex- 
travagance of  opinion  was  unavoidable. 

A  few  particulars  have  been  named  tending  to  show  the 
extent  of  Aztec  advancement  to  which  some  others  may  now 
be  added.  Ornamental  gardens  were  found,  magazines  of 
weapons  and  of  military  costumes,  improved  apparel,  manu- 
factured fabrics  of  cotton  of  superior  workmanship,  improved 
implements  and  utensils,  and  an  increased  variety  of  food; 
picture-writing,  used  chiefly  to  indicate  the  tribute  in  kind 
each  subjugated  village  was  to  pay;  a  calendar  for  measur- 
ing   time,   and  open   markets  for  the  barter   of  commodities. 

by  Clavigero  {Hist,  of  Mex.,  ii,  360),  by  Herrera  {Hist,  of  Ainer.,  ii,  360),  and 
by  Prescott  {Conq.  of  Mex.,  ii,  1 12).  Solis  says  sixty  thousand  farnilies  {Hist. 
Conq.  of  Mex.,  I.  c,  \,  393).  This  estimate  would  give  a  population  of  300,000, 
although  London  at  that  time  contained  but  145,000  inhabitants  (Black's  London, 
p.  5).  Finally,  Torquemada,  cited  by  Clavigero  (ii,  360,  note'),  boldly  writes  one 
hundred  and  twenty  thousand  houses.  There  can  scarcely  be  a  doubt  that  the 
houses  in  this  pueblo  were  in  general  large  communal,  or  joint-tenement  houses, 
like  those  in  New  Mexico  of  the  same  period,  large  enough  to  accommodate  from 
ten  to  fifty  and  a  hundred  families  in  each.  At  either  number  the  mistake  is 
egregious.  Zuazo  and  the  Anonymous  Conqueror  came  the  nearest  to  a  respect- 
able estimate,  because  they  did  not  much  more  than  double  the  probable  number. 


THE  AZTEC  CONFEDERACY. 


197 


Administrative  offices  had  been  created  to  meet  the  demands 
of  a  growing  municipal  life;  a  priesthood,  with  a  temple  wor- 
ship and  a  ritual  including  human  sacrifices,  had  been  estab- 
lished. The  office  of  head  war-chief  had  also  risen  into  in- 
creased importance.  These,  and  other  "circumstances  of  their 
condition,  not  necessary  to  be  detailed,  imply  a  corresponding 
development  of  their  institutions.  Such  are  some  of  the 
differences  between  the  Lower  and  the  Middle  Status  of  barba- 
rism, as  illustrated  by  the  relative  conditions  of  the  Iroquois 
and  the  Aztecs,  both  having  doubtless  the  same  original 
institutions. 

With  these  preliminary  suggestions  made,  the  three  most 
important  and  most  difficult  questions  with  respect  to  the 
Aztec  social  system,  remain  to  be  considered.  They  relate 
first,  to  the  existence  of  Gentes  and  Phratries;  second,  the 
existence  and  functions  of  the  Council  of  Chiefs;  and,  third, 
the  existence  and  functions  of  the  office  of  General  Military 
Commander,  held  by  Montezuma. 
I.    The  Existence  of  Gentes  and  Phratries. 

It  may  seem  singular  that  the  early  Spanish  writers  did  not 
discover  the  Aztec  gentes,  if  in  fact  they  existed;  but  the  case 
was  nearly  the  same  with  the  Iroquois  under  the  observation  of 
our  own  people  more  than  two  hundred  years.  The  existence 
among  them  of  clans,  named  after  animals,  was  pointed  out  at 
an  early  day,  but  without  suspecting  that  it  was  the  unit  of  a 
social  system  upon  which  both  the  tribe  and  the  confederacy 
rested.^  The  failure  of  the  Spanish  investigators  to  notice  the 
existence  of  the  gentile  organization  among  the  tribes  of  Span- 
ish America  would  afford  no  proof  of  its  non-existence;  but  if 
it  did  exist,  it  would  simply  prove  that  their  work  was  super- 
ficial in  this  respect. 

There  is  a  large  amount  of  indirect  and  fragmentary  evidence 
in  the  Spanish  writers  pointing  both  to  the  gens  and  the  phra- 
try,  some  of  which  will  now  be  considered.  Reference  has  been 
made  to  the  frequent  use  of  the  term  "kindred"  by  Herrera, 
showing  that  groups  of  persons  were  noticed  who  were  bound 
together  by  affinities  of  blood.     This,  from  the  size  of  the  group, 

'  League  of  ihe  Iroquois,  p.  78. 


198  ANCIENT  SOCIETY. 

seems  to  require  a  gens.  The  term  "lineage"  is  sometimes 
used  to  indicate  a  still  larger  group,  and  implying  a  phratry. 
The  pueblo  of  Mexico  was  div^ided  geographically  into  four 
quarters,  each  of  which  was  occupied  by  a  lineage,  a  body  of 
people  more  nearly  related  by  consanguinity  among  themselves 
than  they  were  to  the  inhabitants  of  the  other  quarters.  Pre- 
sumptively, each  lineage  was  a  phratry.  Each  quarter  was 
again  subdivided,  and  each  local  subdivision  was  occupied  by  a 
community  of  persons  bound  together  by  some  common  tie.^ 
Presumptively,  this  community  of  persons  was  a  gens.  Turn- 
ing to  the  kindred  tribe  of  Tlascalans,  the  same  facts  nearly 
re-appear.  Their  pueblo  was  divided  into  four  quarters,  each 
occupied  by  a  lineage.  Each  had  its  own  Teuctli  or  head  war- 
chief,  its  distinctive  military  costume,  and  its  own  standard  and 
blazon.^  As  one  people  they  were  under  the  government  of  a 
council  of  chiefs,  which  the  Spaniards  honored  with  the  name 
of  the  Tlascalan  senate.^  Cholula,  in  like  manner,  was  divided 
into  six  quarters,  called  wards  by  Herrera,  which  leads  to  the 
same  inference.*  The  Aztecs  in  their  social  subdivisions  hav- 
ing arranged  among  themselves  the  parts  of  the  pueblo  they 
were  severally  to  occupy,  these  geographical  districts  would  re- 
sult from  their  mode  of  settlement.  If  the  brief  account  of 
these  quarters  at  the  foundation  of  Mexico,  given  by  Herrera, 
who  follows  Acosta,  is  read  in  the  light  of  this  explanation,  the 
truth  of  the  matter  will  be  brought  quite  near.  After  mention- 
ing the  building  of  a  "chapel  of  lime  and  stone  for  the  idol," 
Herrera  proceeds  as  follows:  "When  this  was  done,  the  idol 
ordered  a  priest  to  bid  the  chief  men  divide  themselves,  with 
their  kindred  and  followers,  into  four  wards  or  quarters,  leav- 
ing the  house  that  had  been  built  for  him  to  rest  in  the  middle, 
and  each  party  to  build  as  they  liked  best.  These  are  the  four 
quarters  of  Mexico  now  called  St.  John,  St.  Mary  the  Round, 
St.  Paul  and  St.  Sebastian.  That  division  being  accordingly 
made,  their  idol  again  directed  them  to  distribute  among  them- 

'  Herrera,  iii,  194,  209. 

*  Herrera,  ii,  279,  304:   Clavigero,  i,  146. 

3  Clavigero,  i,  147;  The  four  war-chiefs  were  ex  officio  members  of  the  Council. 
lb.,  ii,  137. 

*  Herrera,  ii,  310. 


THE  AZTEC  CONFEDERACY. 


199 


selves  the  gods  he  should  name,  and  each  ward  to  apponit  pe- 
culiar places  where  the  gods  should  be  worshiped;  and  thus 
every  quarter  has  several  smaller  wards  in  it  according  to  the 
number  of  their  gods  this  idol  called  them  to  adore.  .  .  .  Thus 
Mexico,  Tenochtitlan,  was  founded.  .  .  .  When  the  aforesaid 
partition  was  made,  those  who  thought  themselves  injured,  with 
their  kindred  and  followers,  went  away  to  seek  some  other 
place," ^  namely,  Tlatelulco,  which  was  adjacent.  It  is  a  reason- 
able interpretation  of  this  language  that  they  divided  by  kin, 
first  into  four  general  divisions,  and  these  into  smaller  subdi- 
visions, which  is  the  usual  formula  for  stating  results.  But  the 
actual  process  was  the  exact  reverse;  namely,  each  body  of 
kindred  located  in  an  area  by  themselves,  and  the  several 
bodies  in  such  a  way  as  to  bring  those  most  nearly  related  in 
geographical  connection  with  each  other.  Assuming  that  the 
lowest  subdivision  was  a  gens,  and  that  each  quarter  was  occu- 
pied by  a  phratry,  composed  of  related  gentes,  the  primary  dis- 
tribution of  the  Aztecs  in  their  pueblo  is  perfectly  intelligible. 
Without  this  assumption  it  is  incapable  of  a  satisfactory  expla- 
nation. When  a  people,  organized  in  gentes  phratries  and 
tribes,  settled  in  a  town  or  city,  they  located  by  gentes  and  by 
tribes,  as  a  necessary  consequence  of  their  social  organization. 
The  Grecian  and  Roman  tribes  settled  in  their  cities  in  this  man- 
ner. For  example,  the  three  Roman  tribes  were  organized  in 
gentes  and  curiae,  the  curia  being  the  analogue  of  the  phratry; 
and  they  settled  at  Rome  by  gentes,  by  curije  and  by  tribes. 
The  Ramnes  occupied  the  Palatine  Hill.  The  Titles  were 
mostly  on  the  Ouirinal,  and  the  Luceres  mostly  on  the  Esqui- 
line.  If  the  Aztecs  were  in  gentes  and  phratries,  having  but 
one  tribe,  they  would  of  necessity  be  found  in  as  many  quar- 
ters as  they  had  phratries,  with  each  gens  of  the  same  phratry 
in  the  main  locally  by  itself  As  husband  and  wife  were  of 
different  gentes,  and  the  children  were  of  the  gens  of  the  father 
or  mother  as  descent  was  in  the  male  or  the  female  line,  the 
preponderating  number  in  each  locality  would  be  of  the  same 
gens. 

Their  military  organization  was  based  upon  these  social  di- 

'  Herrera,  iii,  194. 


200  ANCIENT  SOCIETY. 

visions.  As  Nestor  advised  Agamemnon  to  arrange  the  troops 
by  phratries  and  by  tribes,  the  Aztecs  seem  to  have  arranged 
themselves  by  gentes  and  by  phratries.  In  the  Mexican 
CJironiclcs,  by  the  native  autlior  Tezozomoc  (for  a  reference  to 
the  following  passage,  in  which  I  am  indebted  to  my  friend 
Mr.  Ad.  F.  Bandelier,  of  Highland,  Illinois,  who  is  now  engag- 
ed  upon  its  translation),  a  proposed  invasion  of  Michoacan  is 
referred  to.  Axaycatl  "spoke  to  the  Mexican  captains  Tlaca- 
tecatl  and  Tlacochcalcatl,  and  to  all  the  others,  and  inquired 
whether  all  the  Mexicans  were  prepared,  after  the  usages  and 
customs  of  each  ward,  each  one  with  its  captains;  and  if  so 
that  they  should  begin  to  march,  and  that  all  were  to  reunite 
at  Matlatzinco  Toluca."^  It  indicates  that  the  military  organi- 
zation was  by  gentes  and  by  phratries. 

An  inference  of  the  existence  of  Aztec  gentes  arises  also 
from  their  land  tenure.  Clavigero  remarks  that  "the  lands 
which  were  called  Altcpctlalli  [altepetl=pueblo]  that  is,  those  of 
the  communities  of  cities  and  villages,  were  divided  into  as 
many  parts  as  there  were  districts  in  a  city,  and  every  district 
possessed  its  own  part  entirely  distinct  from,  and  independent 
of  every  other.  These  lands  could  not  be  alienated  by  any 
means  whatever."^  In  each  of  these  communities  we  are  led 
to  recognize  a  gens,  whose  localization  was  a  necessary  conse- 
quence of  their  social  system.  Clavigero  puts  the  districts  for 
the  community,  whereas  it  was  the  latter  which  made  the  dis- 
trict, and  which  owned  the  lands  in  common.  The  element  of 
kin,  which  united  each  community,  omitted  by  Clavigero  is 
supplied  by  Herrera.  "There  were  other  lords,  called  major 
parents  [sachems],  whose  landed  property  all  belonged  to  one 
lineage  [gens],  which  lived  in  one  district,  and  there  were  many 
of  them  when  the  lands  were  distributed  at  the  time  New  Spain 
was  peopled;  and  each  lineage  received  its  own,  and  have  pos- 
sessed them  until  now;  and  these  lands  did  not  belong  to  any 
\one  in  particular,  but  to  all  in  common,  and  he  who  possessed 
them  could   not  sell  them,  although  he  enjoyed  them  for  life 

1  Cronka  Mexicana,  De  Fernando  de  Alvarado  Tezozomoc,  ch.  li,  p.  ?>'^,  Kings- 
borough,  V,  ix. 

^  History  of  Alexico,  ii,  141. 


THE  AZTEC  CONFEDERACY.  201 

and  left  them  to  his  sons  and  heirs;  and  if  a  house  died  out 
they  were  left  to  the  nearest  parent  to  whom  they  were  given 
and  to  no  other,  who  administered  the  same  district  or  hne- 
age."^     In  this  remarkable  statement  our  author  was  puzzled 
to  harmonize  the  facts  with  the  prevailing  theory  of  Aztec  in- 
stitutions.     He  presents  to  us  an  Aztec  lord  who  held  the  fee 
of  the  land  as  a  feudal  proprietor,  and  a  title  of  rank  pertaining 
to  it,  both  of  which  he  transmitted  to  his  son  and  heir.      But  in 
obedience  to  truth  he  states  the  essejitial  fact  that  the  lands  be- 
longed to  a  body  of  consanguine!  of  whom  he  is  styled  the 
major  parent,  i.  e.,  he  was  the  sachem,  it  may  be  supposed,  of 
the  gens,  the  latter  owning  these  lands  in  common.     The  sug- 
gestion that  he. held  the  lands  in  trust  means  nothing.     They 
found  Indian  chiefs  connected  with  gentes,  each  gens  owning 
a  body  of  lands  in  common,  and  when  the  chief  died,  his  place 
was  filled  by  his  son,  according  to  Herrera.      In  so  far  it  may 
have  been  analogous  to  a  Spanish  estate  and  title;  and  the  mis- 
conception resulted  from  a  want  of  knowledge  of  the  nature 
and  tenure  of  the  office  of  chief      In  some  cases  they  found  the 
son  did  not  succeed  his  father,  but  the  office  went  to  some 
other  person;  hence  the  further  statement,  "if  a  house  (alguna 
casa,  another  feudal  feature)  died  out, -they  [the  lands]  were  left 
to  the  nearest  major  parent;"  i.  e.,  another  person  was  elected 
sachem,  as  near  as  any  conclusion  can  be  drawn  from  the  lan- 
guage.    What  little  has  been  given  to  us  by  the  Spanish  writ- 
ers concerning  Indian  chiefs,  and  the  land  tenure  of  the  tribes 
is  corrupted  by  the  use  of  language  adapted  to  feudal  institu- 
tions that  had  no  existence  among  them.      In  this  lineage  we 
are  warranted  in  recognizing  an  Aztec  gens;  and  in  this  loi'd 
an  Aztec  sachem,  whose  office  was  hereditary  in  the  gens,  in 
the  sense  elsewhere  stated,  and  elective  among  its  members. 
If  descent  was  in  the  male  line,  the  choice  would  fall  upon  one 
of  the  sons  of  the  deceased  sachem,  own  or  collateral,  upon  a 
grandson,  through  one  of  his  sons,  or  upon  a  brother,  own  or 
collateral.      But   if   in   the   female   line   it   would   fall   upon   a 
brother  or  nephew,  own  or  collateral,  as  elsewhere  explained. 

1  History  of  America,  iii,  314.     The  above  is  a  retranslation  by  Mr.  Bandelier 
from  the  Spanish  text. 


202  ANCIENT  SOCIETY. 

The  sachem  had  no  title  whatever  to  the  lands,  and  therefore 
none  to  transmit  to  any  one.  He  was  thought  to  be  the  pro- 
prietor because  he  held  an  office  which  was  perpetually  main- 
tained, and  because  there  was  a  body  of  lands  perpetually  be- 
longing to  a  gens  over  which  he  was  a  sachem.  The  miscon- 
ception of  this  office  and  of  its  tenure  has  been  the  fruitful 
source  of  unnumbered  errors  in  our  aboriginal  histories.  The 
Uncage  of  Herrera,  and  the  coiiiuui-nitics  of  Clavigero  were  evi- 
dently organizations,  and  the  same  organization.  They  found 
in  this  body  of  kindred,  without  knowing  the  fact,  the  unit  of 
their  social  system — a  gens,  as  we  must  suppose. 

Indian  chiefs  are  described  as  lords  by  Spanish  writers,  and 
invested  with   rights   over  lands  and  over  persons  they  never 
possessed.     It  is  a  misconception  to  style  an  Indian    chief  a 
lord  in  the  European  sense,  because  it  implies  a  condition  of 
society  that    did   not  exist.      A  lord  holds  a  rank  and  a  title 
by  hereditary  right,  secured  to  him  by  special  legislation  in 
derogation  of  the  rights  of  the  people    as  a   whole.     To  this 
rank  and  title,  since  the  overthrow  of  feudalism,   no  duties  are 
attached  which  may  be  claimed  by  the  king  or  the  kingdom  as  a 
matter  of  right.      On  the  contrary,  an  Indian  chief  holds   an 
office,  not  by  hereditary  right,  but  by  election  from  a  constitu- 
ency, which  retained  the  right  to  depose  him  for  cause.     The 
office  carried  with  it  the  obligation  to  perform  certain  duties  for 
the  benefit  of  the  constituency.      He  had  no  authority  over  the 
persons  or  property  or  lands  of  the  members  of  the  gens.      It 
is  thus  seen  that  no  analogy  exists  between  a  lord  and  his  title, 
and  an  Indian  chief  and  his  office.      One  belongs  to  political 
society,    and  represents   an    aggression   of  the   few   upon   the 
many;  while  the  other  belongs  to  gentile  society  and  is  founded 
upon  the  common  interests  of  the  members  of  the  gens.      Un- 
equal privileges  find  no  place  in  the  gens,  phratry  or  tribe* 

Further  traces  of  the  existence  of  Aztec  gentes  will  appear. 
A  prima  facie  case  of  the  existence  of  gentes  among  them  is 
at  least  made  out.  There  was  also  an  antecedent  probability 
to  this  effect,  from  the  presence  of  the  two  upper  members  of 
the  organic  series,  the  tribe,  and  the  confederacy,  and  from  the 
general  prevalence  of  the  organization  among  other  tribes.     A 


THE  AZTEC  CONFEDERACY. 


203 


very  little  close  investigation  by  the  early  Spanish  writers  would 
have  placed  the  question  beyond  a  doubt,  and,  as  a  consequence, 
have  given  a  very  different  complexion  to  Aztec  history. 

The  usages  regulating  the  inheritance  of  property  among  the 
Aztecs  have  come  down  to  us  in  a  confused  and  contradictory 
condition.  They  are  not  material  in  this  discussion,  except  as 
they  reveal  the  existence  of  bodies  of  consanguine!,  and  the 
inheritance  by  children  from  their  fathers.  If  the  latter  were 
the  fact  it  Avould  show  that  descent  was  in  the  male  line,  and 
also  an  extraordinary  adv^ance  in  a  knowledge  of  property.  It 
is  not  probable  that  children  enjoyed  an  exclusive  inheritance, 
or  that  any  Aztec  owned  a  foot  of  land  which  he  could  call  his 
own,  with  power  to  sell  and  convey  to  whomsoever  he  pleased. 
II.    The  Existence  and  Functions  of  the  Council  of  Chiefs. 

The  existence  of  such  a  council  among  the  Aztecs  might 
have  been  predicted  from  the  necessary  constitution  of  Indian 
society.  Theoretically,  it  would  have  been  composed  of  that 
class  of  chiefs,  distinguished  as  sachems,  who  represented  bodies 
of  kindred  through  an  office  perpetually  maintained.  Here 
again,  as  elsewhere,  a  necessity  is  seen  for  gentes,  whose  princi- 
pal chiefs  would  represent  the  people  in  their  ultimate  social 
subdivisions  as  among  the  Northern  tribes.  Aztec  gentes  are 
fairly  necessary  to  explain  the  existence  of  Aztec  chiefs.  Of 
the  presence  of  an  Aztec  council  there  is  no  doubt  whatever; 
but  of  the  number  of  its  members  and  of  its  functions  we  are 
left  in  almost  total  ignorance.  Brasseur  de  Bourbourg  remarks 
generally  that  "nearly  all  the  towns  or  tribes  are  divided  into 
four  clans  or  quarters  whose  chiefs  constitute  the  great  coun- 
cil."^ Whether  he  intended  to  limit  the  number  to  one  chief 
from  each  quarter  is  not  clear;  but  elsewhere  he  limits  the  Az- 
tec council  to  four  chiefs.  Diego  Duran,  who  wrote  his  work 
in  1 579-1 58 1,  and  thus  preceded  both  Acosta  and  Tezozomoc, 
remarks  as  follows:  "First  we  must  know,  that  in  Mexico 
after  having  elected  a  king  they  elected  four  lords  of  the 
brothers  or  near  relations  of  this  king  to  whom  they  gave  the 
titles  of  princes,  and  from  whom  they  had  to  choose  the  king. 
[To  the  offices  he  gives  the  names  of  Tlacachcalcatl,  Tlacatecal, 

'  Popol  Vuh,  Intro,  p.  117,  note  2. 


204 


ANCIENT  SOCIETY. 


Ezuauacatl,  and  Fillancalque].  .  .  These  four  lords  and  titles 
after  being  elected  princes,  they  made  them  the  royal  council, 
like  the  presidents  and  judges  of  the  supreme  council,  without 
whose  opinion  nothing  could  be  done."^  Acosta,  after  naming 
the  same  offices,  and  calling  the  persons  who  held  them  "elect- 
ors," remarks  that  "all  these  four  dignities  were  of  the  great 
council,  without  whose  advice  the  king  might  not  do  anything 
of  importance."^  And  Herrera,  after  placing  these  offices  in 
four  grades,  proceeds:  "These  four  sorts  of  noblemen  were  of 
the  supreme  council,  without  whose  advice  the  king  was  to  do 
nothing  of  moment,  and  no  king  could  be  chosen  but  what 
was  of  one  of  these  four  orders."^  The  use  of  the  term  king 
to  describe  a  principal  war-chief  and  of  princes  to  describe  In- 
dian chiefs  cannot  create  a  state  or  a  political  society  where 
none  existed;  but  as  misnomers  they  stilt  up  and  disfigure  our 
aboriginal  history  and  for  that  reason  ought  to  be  discarded. 
When  the  Huexotzincos  sent  delegates  to  Mexico  proposing 
an  alliance  against  the  Tlascalans,  Montezuma  addressed 
them,  according  to  Tezozomoc,  as  follows:  "Brothers  and 
sons,  you  are  welcome,  rest  yourselves  awhile,  for  although 
I  am  king  indeed  I  alone  cannot  satisfy  you,  but  only 
together  with  all  the  chiefs  of  the  sacred  Mexican  senate."* 
The  above  accounts  recognize  the  existence  of  a  supreme 
council,  with  authority  over  the  action  of  the  principal  war- 
chief,  which  is  the  material  point.  It  tends  to  show  that  the 
Aztecs  guarded  themselves  against  an  irresponsible  despot,  by 
subjecting  his  action  to  a  council  of  chiefs,  and  by  making  him 
elective  and  deposable.  If  the  limited  and  incomplete  state- 
ments of  these  authors  intended  to  restrict  this  council  to  four 
members,  which  Duran  seems  to  imply,  the  limitation  is  im- 
probable. As  such  the  council  would  represent,  not  the  Aztec 
tribe,  but  the  small  body  of  kinsmen  from  whom  the  military 

'  History  of  the  Indies  of  New  Spain  and  Islands  of  the  Main  land,  Mexico, 
1867.  Ed.  by  Jose  F.  Ramirez,  p.  102.  Published  from  the  original  MS.  Trans- 
lated by  Mr.  Bandelier. 

2  The  A^alural  and  Moral  History  of  the  East  and  West  Indies,  Lond.  ed.,  1604, 
Grimstone's  Trans.,  p.  485. 

3  History  of  America,  iii,  224. 

•^  Cronica  Mexicana,  cap.  xcvii,  Bandelier's  Trans. 


THE  AZTEC  COXFEDERACY. 


205 


commander  was  to  be  chosen.  This  is  not  the  theory  of  a 
council  of  chiefs.  Each  chief*  represents  a  constituency,  and 
the  chiefs  together  represent  the  tribe.  A  selection  from  their 
number  is  sometimes  made  to  form  a  general  council;  but  it  is 
through  an  organic  provision  which  fixes  the  number,  and  pro- 
\ddes  for  their  perpetual  maintenance.  The  Tezcucan  council  is 
said  to  have  consisted  of  fourteen  members,^  while  the  council  at 
Tlascala  was  a  numerous  body.  Such  a  council  among  the  Az- 
tecs is  required  by  the  structure  and  principles  of  Indian  society, 
and  therefore  would  be  expected  to  exist.  In  this  council  may 
be  recognized  the  lost  element  in  Aztec  history.  A  knowledge 
of  its  functions  is  essential  to  a  comprehension  of  Aztec  society. 
In  the  current  histories  this  council  is  treated  as  an  advisory 
board  of  Montezuma's,  as  a  council  of  ministers  of  his  own 
creation;  thus  Clavigero:  "In  the  history  of  the  conquest  we 
shall  find  Montezuma  in  frequent  deliberation  with  his  council 
on  the  pretensions  of  the  Spaniards.  We  do  not  know  the 
number  of  each  council,  nor  do  historians  furnish  us  with  the 
lights  necessary  to  illustrate  such  a  subject."^  It  was  one  of  the 
first  questions  requiring  investigation,  and  the  fact  that  the 
early  writers  failed  to  ascertain  its  composition  and  functions  is 
proof  conclusive  of  the  superficial  character  of  their  work.  We 
know,  however,  that  the  council  of  chiefs  is  an  institution  which 
came  in  with  the  gentes,  which  represents  electing  constituen- 
cies, and  which  from  time  immemorial  had  a  vocation  as  well 
as  original  governing  powers.  We  find  a  Tezcucan  and  Tlaco- 
pan  council,  a  Tlascalan,  a  Cholulan  and  a  IMichoacan  council, 
each  composed  of  chiefs.  The  evidence  establishes  the  exis- 
tence of  an  Aztec  council  of  chiefs;  but  so  far  as  it  is  limited 
to  four  members,  all  of  the  same  lineage,  it  is  presented  in  an 
improbable  form.  Every  tribe  in  Mexico  and  Central  America, 
beyond  a  reasonable  doubt,  had  its  council  of  chiefs.  It  was 
the  governing  body  of  the  tribe,  and  a  constant  phenomenon 
in  all  parts  of  aboriginal  America.  The  council  of  chiefs  is 
the  oldest  institution  of  government  of  mankind.  It  can  show 
an    unbroken    succession   on  the  several   continents   from  the 

'  Ixtlilxochitl,  Hist.  Chichimeca,  Kingsborough,  Mex.  Aniiq.  ix,  p.  243. 
*  History  of  Mexico,  ii,  132. 


2o6  ANCIENT  SOCIETY. 

Upper  Status  of  savagery  through  the  three  sub- periods  of 
barbarism  to  the  commencement  of  civiHzation,  when,  having 
been  changed'  into  a  preconsidering  council  with  the  rise  of 
the  assembly  of  the  people,  it  gave  birth  to  the  modern 
legislature  in  two  bodies. 

It  does  not  appear  that  there  was  a  general  council  of  the 
Aztec  confederacy,  composed  of  the  principal  chiefs  of  the 
three  tribes,  as  distinguished  from  the  separate  councils  of 
each.  A  complete  elucidation  of  this  subject  is  required  before 
it  can  be  known  whether  the  Aztec  organization  was  simply  a 
league,  offensive  and  defensive,  and  as  such  under  the  primary 
control  of  the  Aztec  tribe,  or  a  confederacy  in  which  the  parts 
were  integrated  in  a  symmetrical  whole.  This  problem  must 
await  future  solution. 

III.    The  Tenure  and  Fii  net  ions  of  the  Offiee  of  Prineipal  War- 
ehief. 

The  name  of  the  office  held  by  Montezuma,  according  to 
the  best  accessible  information,  was  simply  Tenet li,  which  sig- 
nifies a  zvar-ehief.  As  a  member  of  the  council  of  chiefs  he  was 
sometimes  called  Tlatoani,  which  signifies  speaker.  This  office 
of  a  general  military  commander  was  the  highest  known  to  the 
Aztecs.  It  was  the  same  office  and  held  by  the  same  tenure  as 
that  of  principal  war-chief  in  the  Iroquois  confederacy.  It  made 
the  person,  ex  offieio,  a  member  of  the  council  of  chiefs,  as  may 
be  inferred  from  the  fact  that  in  some  of  the  tribes  the  principal 
war-chief  had  precedence  in  the  council  both  in  debate  and  in 
pronouncing  his  opinion.^  None  of  the  Spanish  writers  apply 
this  title  to  Montezuma  or  his  successors.  It  was  superseded  by 
the  inappropriate  title  of  king.  Ixtiilxoehitl,  who  was  of  mixed 
Tezcucan  and  Spanish  descent,  describes  the  head  war-chiefs 
of  Mexico,  Tezcuco  and  Tlacopan,  by  the  simple  title  of  war- 
chief,  with  another  to  indicate  the  tribe.  After  speaking  of 
the  division  of  powers  between  the  three  chiefs  when  the  con- 

*  "  The  title  of  Teiutll  was  added  in  the  manner  of  a  surname  to  the  'proper 
name  of  the  person  advanced  to  this  dignity,  as  Chichimeca-  Teiictli,  Fit-  Teitcili, 
and  others.  The  Teitcili  took  precedency  of  all  others  in  the  senate,  both  in  the 
order  of  sitting  and  voting,  and  were  permitted  to  have  a  servant  behind  them  with 
a  seat,  whicli  was  esteemed  a  privilege  of  the  highest  honor." — Clavigero,  ii,  137. 
This  is  a  re-appearance  of  the  sub-sachem  of  the  Iroquois  behind  his  principal. 


THE  AZTEC  CONFEDERACY.  20/ 

federacy  was  formed,  and  of  the-  assembling  of  the  chiefs  of  the 
three  tribes  on  that  occasion,  he  proceeds:  "The  king  of 
Tezcuco  was  sahited  by  the  title  of  Aciilhua  Teuctli,  also  by 
that  of  CJiicJiiinccatl  Tciictli  which  his  ancestors  had  worn, 
and  which  was  the  mark  of  the  empire ;  Itzcoatzin,  his  uncle, 
received  the  title  of  CnlJiua  Teuctli,  because  he  reigned  over 
the  Toltecs-Culhuas ;  and  Totoqnihuatzin  that  of  Tecpaimatl 
Teuctli,  which  had  been  the  title  of  AzcapiUzalco.  Since  that 
time  their  successors  have  received  the  same  title. "^  Itzcoatzin 
{Itzcoatl),  here  mentioned,  was  war-chief  of  the  Aztecs  when 
the  confederacy  was  formed.  As  the  title  was  that  of  war-chief, 
then  held  by  many  other  persons,  the  compliment  consisted  in 
connecting  with  it  a  tribal  designation.  In  Indian  speech  the 
office  held  by  Montezuma  was  equivalent  to  head  war-chief, 
and  in  English  to  general. 

Clavigero  recognizes  this  office  in  several  Nahuatlac  tribes, 
but  never  applies  it  to  the  Aztec  war-chief  "The  highest 
rank  of  nobility  in  Tlascala,  in  Huexotzinco  and  in  Cholula 
was  that  of  Teuctli.  To  obtain  this  rank  it  was  necessary  to 
be  of  noble  birth,  to  have  given  proofs  in  several  battles  of  the 
utmost  courage,  to  have  arrived  at  a  certain  age,  and  to  com- 
mand great  riches  for  the  enormous  expenses  which  were  nec- 
essary to  be  supported  by  the  possessor  of  such  a  dignity."' 
After  Montezuma  had  been  magnified  into  an  absolute  potent- 
ate, with  civil  as  well  as  military  functions,  the  nature  and 
powers  of  the  office  he  held  were  left  in  the  background — in 
fact  uninvestigated.  As  their  general  military  commander  he 
possessed  the  means  of  winning  the  popular  favor,  and  of  com- 
manding the  popular  respect.  It  was  a  dangerous  but  neces- 
sary office  to  the  tribe  and  to  the  confederacy.  Throughout 
human  experience,  from  the  Lower  Status  of  barbarism  to  the 
present  time,  it  has  ever  been  a  dangerous  office.  Constitu- 
tions and  laws  furnish  the  present  security  of  civilized  nations, 
so  far  as  they  have  any.  A  body  of  usages  and  customs  grew 
up,  in  all  probability,  among  the  advanced  Indian  tribes  and 
among  the  tribes  of  the  valley  of  Mexico,  regulating  the  pow- 

'  Historia  Chichimeca,  ch.  xxxii,  Kingsborough :  Mex.  Antiq.,  ix,  219. 
*  History  of  Mexico,  I.  c,  ii,  1 36. 


2o8  AXCIENT  SOCIETY. 

ers  and  prescribing  the  duties  of  this  office.  There  are  general 
reasons  warranting  the  supposition  that  thc_Aztec  council  of 
phiefs  was  supreme,  not  only  in  civil  affairs,  but  over  military 
affairs,  the  person  and  direction  of  the  war-chief  included. 
The  Aztec  polity  under  increased  numbers  and  material  ad- 
vancement, had  undoubtedly  grown  complex,  and  for  that  rea- 
son a  knowledge  of  it  would  have  been  the  more  instructive. 
Could  the  exact  particulars  of  their  governmental  organization 
be  ascertained  they  would  be  sufficiently  remarkable  without 
embellishment. 

The  Spanish  writers  concur  generally  in  the  statement  that 
the  office  held  by  Montezuma  was  elective,  with  the  choice 
confined  to  a  particular  family.  The  office  was  found  to  pass 
from  brother  to  brother,  or  from  uncle  to  nephew.  They  were 
unable,  however,  to  explain  why  it  did  not  in  some  cases  pass 
from  father  to  son.  Since  the  mode  of  succession  was  unusual  to 
the  Spaniards  there  was  less  possibility  of  a  mistake  with  regard 
to  the  principal  fact.  Moreover,  two  successions  occurred 
under  the  immediate  notice  of  the  conquerors.  Montezuma 
was  succeeded  by  Cuitlahua.  In  this  case  the  office  passed 
from  brother  to  brother,  although  we  cannot  know  whether 
they  were  own  or  collateral  brothers  without  a  knowledge  of 
their  system  of  consanguinity.  Upon  the  death  of  the  latter 
Guatemozin  was  elected  to  succeed  him.  Here  the  office 
passed  from  uncle  to  nephew,  but  we  do  not  know  whether 
he  was  an  own  or  a  collateral  nephew.  (See  Part  Third,  ch. 
iii.)  In  previous  cases  the  office  had  passed  from  brother  to 
brother  and  also  from  uncle  to  nephew.^  An  elective  office 
implies  a  constituency ;  but  who  were  the  constituents  in  this 
case?  To  meet  this  question  the  four  chiefs  mentioned  by 
Duran  [supra)  are  introduced  as  electors,  to  whom  one  elector 
from  Tezcuco  and  one  from  Tlacopan  are  added,  making  six, 
who  are  then  invested  with  power  to  choose  from  a  particular 
family  the  principal  war-chief  This  is  not  the  theory  of  an 
elective  Indian  office,  and  it  may  be  dismissed  as  improbable. 
Sahagun  indicates  a  much  larger  constituency.  "When  the 
king  or  lord  died,"  he  remarks,   "all  the  senators  called  Tecut- 

'  Clavigero,  ii,  126. 


THE  AZTEC  CONFEBERACY. 


209 


latoqncs,  and  the  old  men  of  the  tribe  called  AchcacanJttl,  and 
also  the  captains  and  old  warriors  called  Yautcqnioaqiics,   and 
other  prominent  captains  in  warlike  matters,  and  also  the  priests 
called    Tlcnaniacaques,   or   Papasaqucs — all  these  assembled  in 
the  royal  houses.     Then  they  deliberated  upon  and  determined 
who  had  to  be  lord,  and  chose  one  of  the  most  noble  of  the 
lineage    of  the    past    lords,    who    should    be    a    valiant    man, 
experienced   in    warlike    matters,   daring   and    brave. 
When  they  agreed  upon  one  they  at  once  named  him  as  lord, 
but  this  election  was  not  made  by  ballot  or  votes,  but  all  to- 
gether conferring  at  last  agreed  upon  the  man.     The  lord  once 
elected  they  also  elected  four  others  which  were  like  senators, 
and  had  to  be  always  with  the  lord,  and  be  informed  of  all  the 
business  of  the  kingdom."^     This  scheme  of  election  by  a  large 
assembly,  Vvhile  it  shows  the  popular  element  in  the  govern- 
ment which  undoubtedly  existed,  is  without  the  method  of  In- 
dian  institutions.     Before  the  tenure   of   this   office   and    the 
mode  of  election  can  be  made  intelligible,  it  is  necessary  to  find 
whether  or  not  they  were  organized  in  gentes,  whether  descent 
was  in  the  female  line  or  the  male,  and  to  know  something  of 
their  system  of  consanguinity.      If  they  had  the  system  found 
in  many  other  tribes  of  the  Ganowanian  family,  which  is  prob- 
able, a  man    would    call   his   brother's   son   his   son,   and    his 
sister's  son  his  nephew;  he  would  call  his  father's  brother  his 
father,  and  his  mother's  brother  his  uncle;  the  children  of  his 
father's  brother  his  brothers  and  sisters,  and  the  children  of  his 
mother's  brother  his  cousins,  and  so  on.     If  organized  into  gentes 
with  descent   in  the  female  line,   a  man  would  have  brothers, 
uncles    and    nephews,    collateral    grandfathers    and    grandsons 
within  his  own  gens;  but  neither  own  father,  own  son,  or  lineal 
grandson.      His  own  sons  and  his  brother's  sons  would  belong 
to  other  gentes.     It  cannot  as  yet  be  affirmed  that  the  Aztecs 
were  organized  in  gentes;  but  the  succession  to  the  office  of  prin- 
cipal war-chief  is  of  itself  strong  proof  of  the  fact,  because  it 
would  explain  this  succession  completely.     Then  with  descent 
in  the  female  line  the  office  would  be  hereditary  in  a  particular 
gens,  but  elective  among  its  members.      In  that  case  the  office 

'  Historia  General,  ch.  xviii. 


210  ANCIENT  SOCIETY. 

\  would  pass,  by  election  within  the  gens,  from  brother  to 
I  brother,  or  from  uncle  to  nephew,  precisely  as  it  did  among 
the  Aztecs,  and  never  from  father  to  son.  Among  the  Iro- 
quois at  that  same  time  the  offices  of  sachem  and  of  principal 
war-chief  were  passing  from  brother  to  brother  or  from  uncle 
to  nephew,  as  the  choice  might  happen  to  fall,  and  never  to 
the  son.  It  was  the  gens,  with  descent  in  the  female  line, 
which  gave  this  mode  of  succession,  and  which  could  have 
been  secured  in  no  other  conceivable  way.  It  is  difficult  to 
resist  the  conclusion,  from  these  facts  alone,  that  the  Aztecs 
were  organized  in  gentes,  and  that  in  respect  to  this  office  at 
least  descent  was  still  in  the  female  line. 

It  may  therefore  be  suggested,  as  a  probable  explanation, 
that  the  office  held  by  Montezuma  was  hereditary  in  a  gens 
(the  eagle  was  the  blazon  or  totem  on  the  house  occupied  by 
Montezuma),  by  the  members  of  which  the  choice  was  made 
from  among  their  number;  that  their  nomination  was  then  sub- 
mitted separately  to  the  four  lineages  or  divisions  of  the  Aztecs 
(conjectured  to  be  phratries),  for  acceptance  or  rejection;  and 
also  to  the  Tezcucans  and  Tlacopans,  who  were  directly  inter- 
ested in  the  selection  of  the  general  commander.  When  they 
had  severally  considered  and  confirmed  the  nomination  each 
division  appointed  a  person  to  signify  their  concurrence; 
whence  the  six  miscalled  electors.  It  is  not  unlikely  that  the 
four  high  chiefs  of  the  Aztecs,  mentioned  as  electors  by  a  num- 
ber of  authors,  were  in  fact  the  war-chiefs  of  the  four  divisions 
of  the  Aztecs,  like  the  four  war-chiefs  of  the  four  lineages  of  the 
Tlascalans.  The  function  of  these  persons  was  not  to  elect, 
but  to  ascertain  by  a  conference  with  each  other  whether  the 
choice  made  by  the  gens  had  been  concurred  in,  and  if  so  to 
announce  the  result.  The  foregoing  is  submitted  as  a  conject- 
ural explanation,  upon  the  fragments  of  evidence  remaining,  of 
the  mode  of  succession  to  the  Aztec  office  of  principal  war- 
chief  It  is  seen  to  harmonize  with  Indian  usages,  and  with 
the  theory  of  the  office  of  an  elective  Indian  chief 

The  right  to  depose  from  office  follows  as  a  necessary  conse- 
quence of  the  right  to  elect,  where  the  term  was  for  life.  It  is 
thus  turned  into  an  office  duriner  e:ood  behavior.     In  these  two 


THE  AZTEC  CONFEDERACY.  2 1 1 

principles  of  electing  and  deposing,  universally  established  in  the 
social  system  of  the  American  aborigines,  sufficient  evidence  is 
furnished  that  the  sovereign  power  remained  practically  in  the 
hands  of  the  people.  This  power  to  depose,  though  seldom 
exercised,  was  vital  in  the  gentile  organization.  Montezuma 
was  no  exception  to  the  rule.  It  required  time  to  reach  this 
result  from  the  peculiar  circumstances  of  the  case,  for  a  good 
reason  was  necessary.  When  Montezuma  allowed  himself, 
through  intimidation,  to  be  conducted  from  his  place  of  resi- 
dence to  the  quarters  of  Cortes  where  he  was  placed  under 
confinement,  the  Aztecs  were  paralyzed  for  a  time  for  the 
want  of  a  military  commander.  The  Spaniards  had  posses- 
sion both  of  the  man  and  of  his  office.^  They  waited  some 
\veeks,  hoping  the  Spaniards  would  retire;  but  when  they  found 
the  latter  intended  to  remain  they  met  the  necessity,  as  there  X 
are  sufficient  reasons  for  believing,  by  deposing  Montezuma  for  ,  t 
want  of  resolution,  and  elected  his  brother  to  fill  his  place,  a 
Immediately  thereafter  they  assaulted  the  Spanish  quarters  with  0 
great  fury,  and  finally  succeeded  in  driving  them  from  their 
pueblo.  This  conclusion  respecting  the  deposition  of  Monte- 
zuma is  fully  warranted  by  Herrera's  statement  of  the  facts. 
After  the  assault  commenced,  Cortes,  observing  the  Aztecs 
obeying  a  new  commander,  at  once  suspected  the  truth  of  the 
matter,  and  "sent  Marina  to  ask  Montezuma  whether  he  thought 
they  had  put  the  government  into  his  hands," ^  /.  e.,  the  hands  of 
the  new  commander.  Montezuma  is  said  to  have  replied  "that 
they  would  not  presume  to  choose  a  king  in  Mexico  whilst  he  was 
living."^  He  then  went  upon  the  roof  of  the  house  and  ad- 
dressed his  countrymen,  saying  among  other  things,  "that  he 

*  In  the  West  India  Islands  the  Spaniards  discovered  that  when  they  captured 
the  cacique  of  a  tribe  and  held  him  a  prisoner,  the  Indians  became  demoralized 
and  refused  to  fight.  Taking  advantage  of  this  knowledge  when  they  reached  the 
main-land  they  made  it  a  point  to  entrap  the  principal  chief,  by  force  or  fraud,  and 
hold  him  a  prisoner  until  their  object  was  gained.  Cortes  simply  acted  upon  this 
experience  when  he  captured  Montezuma  and  held  him  a  prisoner  in  his  quarters ; 
and  Pizaarro  did  the  same  when  he  seized  Atahuallpa.  Under  Indian  customs 
the  prisoner  was  put  to  death,  and  if  a  principal  chief,  the  office  reverted  to  the 
tribe  and  was  at  once  filled.  But  in  these  cases  the  prisoner  remained  alive,  and 
in  possession  of  his  office,  so  that  it  could  not  be  filled.  The  action  of  the  people 
was  paralyzed  by  novel  circumstances.     Cortes  put  the  Aztecs  in  this  position.      ^ 

'  History  of  Mexico,  iii,  66.  3  lb.,  iii,  67. 


212  ANCIENT  SOCIETY. 

had  been  informed  they  had  chosen  another  king  because  he 
was  confined  and  loved  the  Spaniards;"  to  which  he  received 
the  following  ungracious  reply  from  an  Aztec  warrior:  "Hold 
your  peace,  you  effeminate  scoundrel,  born  to  weave  and  spin; 
these  dogs  keep  you  a  prisoner,  you  are  a  coward."^  Then 
they  discharged  arrows  upon  him  and  stoned  him,  from  the  ef- 
fects of  which  and  from  deep  humiliation  he  shortly  afterwards 
died.  The  war-chief  in  the  command  of  the  Aztecs  in  this 
assault  was  Cuitlahua,  the  brother  of  Montezuma  and  his  suc- 
cessor.^ 

Respecting  the  functions  of  this  office  very  little  satisfactory 
information  can  be  derived  from  the  Spanish  writers.  There 
is  no  reason  for  supposing  that  Montezuma  possessed  any 
power  over  the  civil  affairs  of  the  Aztecs.  Moreover,  every 
presumption  is  against  it.  In  military  affairs  when  in  the  field 
he  had  the  powers  of  a  general;  but  military  movements  were 
probably  decided  upon  by  the  council.  It  is  an  interesting 
fact  to  be  noticed  that  the  functions  of  a  priest  were  attached 
to  the  office  of  principal  war-chief,  and,  as  it  is  claimed,  those 
of  a  judge.^  The  early  appearance  of  these  functions  in  the 
natural  growth  of  the  military  office  will  be  referred  to  again 
in  connection  with  that  of  basileus.  Although  the  govern- 
ment was  of  two  powers  it  is  probable  that  the  council  was 
supreme,  in  case  of  a  conflict  of  authority,  over  civil  and  mili- 
tary affairs.  It  should  be  remembered  that  the  council  of 
chiefs  was  the  oldest  in  time,  and  possessed  a  solid  basis  of 
power  in  the  needs  of  society  and  in  the  representative  charac- 
ter of  the  office  of  chief 

The  tenure  of  the  office  of  principal  war-chief  and  the  pres- 
ence of  a  council  with  power  to  depose  from  office,  tend  to 
show  that  the  institutions  of  the  Aztecs  were  essentially  demo- 
cratical.  The  elective  principle  with  respect  to  war-chief,  and 
which  we  must  suppose  existed  with  respect  to  sachem  and 
chief,  and  the  presence  of  a  council  of  chiefs,  determine  the 
material  fact.  A  pure  democracy  of  the  Athenian  type  was 
unknown  in  the  Lower,  in  the  Middle,  or  even  in  the  Upper 

'  Clavigero,  ii,  406.  *  lb.,  ii,  404. 

'  Herrera,  iii,  393. 


THE  AZTEC  CONFEDERACY.  2 1 3 

Status  of  barbarism;  but  it  is  very  important  to  know  whether 
the  institutions  of  a  people  are  essentially  democratical,  or  es- 
1  sentially  monarchical,  when  we  seek  to  understand  them.  In- 
V  stitutions  of  the  former  kind  are  separated  nearly  as  widely 
I  from  those  of  the  latter,  as  democracy  is  from  monarchy.  With- 
out ascertaining  the  unit  of  their  social  system,  if  organized  in 
gentes  as  they  probably  were,  and  without  gaining  a  knowledge 
of  the  system  that  did  exist,  the  Spanish  writers  boldly  invent- 
ed for  the  Aztecs  an  absolute  monarchy  with  high  feudal  char- 
acteristics, and  have  succeeded  in  placing  it  in  history.  This 
misconception  has  stood,  through  American  indolence,  quite  as 
long  as  it  deserves  to  stand.  The  Aztec  organization  presented 
itself  plainly  to  the  Spaniards  as  a  league  or  confederacy  of 
tribes.  Nothing  but  the  grossest  perversion  of  obvious  facts 
could  have  enabled  the  Spanish  writers  to  fabricate  the  Aztec 
monarchy  out  of  a  democratic  organization. 

Theoretically,  the  Aztecs,  Tezcucans  and  Tlacopans  should 
severally  have  had  a  head-sachem  to  represent  the  tribe  in  civil 
affairs  when  the  council  of  chiefs  was  not  in  session,  and  to  take 
the  initiative  in  preparing  its  work.  There  are  traces  of  such 
an  officer  among  the  Aztecs  in  the  Ziahitacatl,  who  is  some- 
times called  the  second  chief,  as  the  war-chief  is  called  the  first. 
But  the  accessible  information  respecting  this  office  is  too  limit- 
ed to  warrant  a  discussion  of  the  subject. 

It  has  been  shown  among  the  Iroquois  that  the  warriors 
could  appear  before  the  council  of  chiefs  and  express  their 
views  upon  public  questions;  and  that  the  women  could  do  the 
same  through  orators  of  their  own  selection.  This  popular 
participation  in  the  government  led  in  time  to  the  popular  as- 
sembly, with  power  to  adopt  or  reject  public  measures  submit- 
ted to  them  by  the  council.  Among  the  Village  Indians  there 
is  no  evidence,  so  far  as  the  author  is  aware,  that  there  was  an 
assembly  of  the  people  to  consider  public  questions  with  power 
to  act  upon  them.  The  four  lineages  probably  met  for  special 
objects,  but  this  was  very  different  from  a  general  assembly  for 
public  objects.  From  the  democratic  character  of  their  insti- 
tutions and  their  advanced  condition  the  Aztecs  were  drawing 
near  the  time  when  the  assembly  of  the  people  might  be  ex- 
pected to  appear. 


214  ANCIENT  SOCIETY. 

The  growth  of  the  idea  of  government  among  the  American 
aborigines,  as  elsewhere  remarked,  commenced  with  the  gens 
and  ended  with  the  confederacy.  Their  organizations  were 
social  and  not  political.  Until  the  idea  of  property  had  ad- 
iVanced  very  far  beyond  the  point  they  had  attained,  the  substi- 
Itution  of  political  for  gentile  society  was  impossible.  There  is 
not  a  fact  to  show  that  any  portion  of  the  aborigines,  at  least 
in  North  America,  had  reached  any  conception  of  the  second 
great  plan  of  government  founded  upon  territory  and  upon 
property.  The  spirit  of  the  government  and  the  condition  of 
the  people  harmonize  with  the  institutions  under  which  they 
live.  When  the  military  spirit  predominates,  as  it  did  among 
the  Aztecs,  a  military  democracy  rises  naturally  under  gentile 
institutions.  Such  a  government  neither  supplants  the  free 
spirit  of  the  gentes,  nor  weakens  the  principles  of  democracy, 
but  accords  with  them  harmoniously. 


CHAPTER  VIII. 

THE    GRECIAN   GENS. 

Early  condition  of  Grecian  Tribes.— Organized  into  Gentes.-— Changes 
IN  THE  Character  of  the  Gens. — Necessity  for  a  Political  System. — 
Problem  TO  be  Solved.— The  Format(on  of  a  State.— Grote's  Description 
OF  the  Grecian  Gentes.— Of  their  Phratries  and  Tribes. — Attributes 
of  the  Gens.— Similar  to  those  of  the  Iroquois  Gentes. — The  Office  of 
Chief  of  the  Gens.— Whether  Elective  or  Hereditary.— The  Gens  the 
Basis  of  the  Social  System. — Antiquity  of  the  Gentile  Lineage. — Inher- 
itance OF  Property.— Archaic  and  Final  Rule.— Relationships  between 
the  Members  of  a  Gens.— The  Gens  the  Centre  of  Social  and  Religious 
Influence. 

Civilization  may  be  said  to  have  commenced  among  the  Asi- 
atic Greeks  with  the  composition  of  the  Homeric  poems  about 
850  B.  C. ;  and  among  the  European  Greeks  about  a  century 
later  with  the  composition  of  the  Hesiodic  poems.  Anterior 
to  these  epochs,  there  was  a  period  of  several  thousand  years 
during  which  the  Hellenic  tribes  were  advancing  through  the 
Later  Period  of  barbarism,  and  preparing  for  their  entrance 
upon  a  civilized  career.  Their  most  ancient  traditions  find 
them  already  established  in  the  Grecian  peninsula,  upon  the 
eastern  border  of  the  Mediterranean,  and  upon  the  intermedi- 
ate and  adjacent  islands.  An  older  branch  of  the  same  stock, 
of  which  the  Pelasgians  were  the  chief  representatives,  had 
preceded  them  in  the  occupation  of  the  greater  part  of  these 
areas,  and  were  in  time  either  Hellenized  by  them,  or  forced 
into  emigration.  The  anterior  condition  of  the  Hellenic  tribes 
and  of  their  predecessors,  must  be  deduced  from  the  arts  and 


2 1 6  ANCIENT  SOCJE T  Y. 

inventions  which  they  brought  down  from  the  previous  period, 
from  the  state  of  development  of  their  language,  from  their 
traditions  and  from  their  social  institutions,  which  severally 
survived  into  the  period  of  civilization.  Our  discussion  will  be 
restricted,  in  the  main,  to  the  last  class  of  facts. 

Pelasgians  and  Hellenes  alike  were  organized  in  gentes, 
phratries^  and  tribes;  and  the  latter  united  by  coalescence  into 
nations.  In  some  cases  the  organic  series  was  not  complete. 
Whether  in  tribes  or  nations  their  government  rested  upon  the 
gens  as  the  unit  of  organization,  and  resulted  in  a  gentile  so- 
ciety or  a  people,  as  distinguished  from  a  political  society  or  a 
state.  The  instrument  of  government  was  a  council  of  chiefs, 
with  the  co-operation  of  an  agora  or  assembly  of  the  people, 
and  of  a  basileus  or  military  commander.  The  people  were 
free,  and  their  institutions  democratical.  Under  the  influence 
of  advancing  ideas  and  wants  the  gens  had  passed  out  of  its 
archaic  into  its  ultimate  form.  Modifications  had  been  forced 
upon  it  by  the  irresistible  demands  of  an  improving  society; 
but,  notwithstanding  the  concessions  made,  the  failure  of  the 
gentes  to  meet  these  wants  was  constantly  becoming  more  ap- 
parent. The  changes  were  limited,  in  the  main,  to  three  par- 
ticulars: firstly,  descent  was  changed  to  the  male  line;  second- 
ly, intermarriage  in  the  gens  was  permitted  in  the  case  of 
female  orphans  and  heiresses;  and  thirdly,  children  had  gained 
an  exclusive  inheritance  of  their  father's  property.  An  at- 
tempt will  elsewhere  be  made  to  trace  these  changes,  briefly, 
and  the  causes  by  which  they  were  produced. 

The  Hellenes  in  general  were  in  fragmentary  tribes,  present- 
ing the  same  characteristics  in  their  form  of  government  as  the 
barbarous  tribes  in  general,  when  organized  in  gentes  and  in 
the  same  stage  of  advancement.  Their  condition  was  precisely 
such  as  might  have  been  predicted  would  exist  under  gentile 
institutions,  and  therefore  presents  nothing  remarkable. 

When  Grecian  society  came  for  the  first  time  under  histor- 
ical observation,  about  the  first  Olympiad  {'jy6  B.  C.)  and 
down  to    the   legislation   of    Cleisthenes   (509   B.    C),    it   was 

'  Tlie   phratries  were  not  common  to  the   Dorian  tribes. — Miiller's  Dorians, 
Tufnel  and  Law's  Trans.,  Oxford  ed.,  ii,  82. 


THE  GRECIAN  GENS.  21/ 

engaged  upon  the  solution  of  a  great  problem.     It  was  no  less 
than  a  fundamental  change  in  the  plan  of  government,  involv- 
ing a  great  modification  of  institutions.     The  people  were  seek- 
ing to  transfer  themselves  out  of  gentile  society,  in  which  they 
had  lived  from  time  immemorial,  into  political  society  based 
upon  territory  and  upon  property,  which  had  become  essential 
to  a  career  of  civilization.      In  fine,  they  were  striving  to  estab- 
lish a  state,  the  first  in  the  experience  of  the  Aryan  family,  and 
to  place  it  upon  a  territorial  foundation,  such  as  the  state  has 
occupied  from  that  time  to  the  present.      Ancient  society  rested 
i  upon  an  organization  of  persons,  and  was  governed  through 
I  the  relations  of  persons  to  a  gens  and  tribe;  but  the  Grecian 
1  tribes  were  outgrowing  this  old  plan  of  government,  and  began 
I  to  feel  the  necessity  of  a  political  system.     To  accomplish  this 
j  result  it  was  only  necessary  to  invent  a^eme  or  township,  cir- 
1  cumscribed  with  boundaries,  to  christen  it  with  a  name,  and  or- 
'  ganize  the  people  therein  as  a  body  politic.     The  township, 
with  the  fixed  property  it  contained,  and  with  the  people  who 
inhabited  it  for  the  time  being,  was  to  become  the  unit  of  or- 
ganization in  the  new  plan  of  government.     Thereafter  the  gen- 
tilis,  changed  into  a  citizen,  would  be  dealt  with  by  the  state 
through  his  territorial  relations,  and  not  through  his  personal 
relations  to  a  gens.      He  would  be  enrolled  in  the  deme  of  his 
residence,  which  enrollment  was  the  evidence  of  his  citizenship ; 
would  vote  and  be  taxed  in  his  deme;   and  from  it  be  called 
into  the  mihtary  service.     Although  apparently  a  simple  idea, 
it  required  centuries  of  time  and  a  complete  revolution  of  pre- 
existing conceptions  of  government  to  accomplish  the  result. 
The  gens,  which  had  so  long  been  the  unit  of  a  social  system, 
had  proved  inadequate,  as  before  suggested,  to  meet  the  re- 
quirements of  an  advancing  society.      But  to  set  this  organiza- 
tion aside,  together  with  the  phratry  and  tribe,  and  substitute  a 
number  of  fixed  areas,  each  with  its  community  of  citizens,  was, 
in  the  nature  of  the  case,  a  measure  of  extreme  difficulty.     The 
relations  of  the  individual  to  his  gens,  which  were  personal,  had 
to  be  transferred  to  the  township  and  become  territorial;  the 
demarch  of  the  township  taking,  in  some  sense,  the  place  of 
the  chief  of  the  gens.     A  township  with  its  fixed  property  would 


2  1 8  ANCIENT  SOCIE T  Y. 

be  permanent,  and  the  people  therein  sufficiently  so;  while  the 
gens  was  a  fluctuating  aggregate  of  persons,  more  or  less  scat- 
tered, and  now  growing  incapable  of  permanent  establishment 
in  a  local  circumscription.  Anterior  to  experience,  a  township, 
as  the  unit  of  a  political  system,  was  abstruse  enough  to  tax  the 
Greeks  and  Klomans  to  the  depths  of  their  capacities  before  the 
conception  was  formed  and  set  in  practical  operation.  F^£S£- 
erty  was  the  new  element  that  had  been  gradually  remoulding 
Grecian  institutions  to  prepare  the  way  for  political  society,  of 
which  it  was  to  be  the  mainspring  as  well  as  the  foundation. 
It  was  no  easy  task  to  accomplish  such  a  fundamental  change, 
however  simple  and  obvious  it  may  now  seem;  because  all  the 
previous  experience  of  the  Grecian  tribes  had  been  identified 
i  with  the  gentes  whose  powers  were  to  be  surrendered  to  the 
\  new  political  bodies. 

j        Several  centuries  elapsed,  after  the  first  attempts  were  made 
^  to   found   the  new  political  system,   before   the   problem   was 
solved.     After  experience  had  demonstrated  that  the  gentes 
were  incapable  of  forming  the  basis  of  a  state,  several  distinct 
schemes  of  legislation  were  tried  in  the  various  Grecian  com- 
v  munities,  who  copied  more  or  less  each  other's  experiments,  all 
I  tending  to  the  same  result.     Among  the  Athenians,  from  whose 
'experience  the  chief  illustrations  will  be  drawn,  may  be  men- 
tioned the  legislation  of  Theseus,  on  the  authority  of  tradition; 
that  of  Draco  (624  B.  C);    that  of  Solon  (594  B.  C);   and 
that  of  Cleisthenes  (509  B.  C),  the  last  three  of  which  were 
within   the  historical  period.     The  development  of  municipal 
life  and  institutions,  the  aggregation  of  wealth  in  walled  cities, 
and  the  great  changes  in  the  mode  of  life  thereby  produced, 
prepared  the  way  for  the  overthrow  of  gentile  society,  and  for 
the  establishment  of  political  society  in  its  place. 

Before  attempting  to  trace  the  transition  from  gentile  into  po- 
litical society,  with  which  the  closing  history  of  the  gentes  is 
identified,  the  Grecian  gens  and  its  attributes  will  be  first  con- 
sidered. 

Athenian  institutions  are  typical  of  Grecian  institutions  in 
general,  in  whatever  relates  to  the  constitution  of  the  gens  and 
tribe,  down  to  the  end  of  ancient  society  among  them.     At 


THE  GRECIAN  GENS. 


219 


the  commencement  of  the  historical  period,  the  lonians  of  At- 
tica were  subdivided,  as  is  well  known,  into  four  tribes  (Gele- 
ontes,  Hopletes,  Aegicores,  and  Argades),  speaking  the  same 
dialect,  and  occupying  a  common  territory.  They  had  coal- 
esced into  a  nation  as  distinguished  from  a  confederacy  of 
tribes;  but  such  a  confederacy  had  probably  existed  in  anterior 
times.^  Each_Attic  tribe  was  composed  of  three  phratries,  and 
ea£h  phratry  of  thirty  gentes,  making  an  aggregate  of  twelve 
phratries,  and  of  three  hundred  and  sixty  gentes  in  the  four 
tribes.  Such  is  the  general  form  of  the  statement,  the  fact  be- 
ing constant  with  respect  to  the  number  of  tribes,  and  the 
number  of  phratries  in  each,  but  liable  to  variation  in  the  num- 
ber of  gentes  in  each  phratry.  In  like  manner  the  Dorians 
were  generally  found  in  three  tribes  (Hylleis,  Pamphyli,  and 
Dymanes),  although  forming  a  number  of  nationalities;  as  at 
Sparta,  Argos,  Sicyon,  Corinth,  Epidaurus  and  Troezen;  and 
beyond  the  Peloponnesus  at  Megara,  and  elsewhere.  One  or 
more  non-Dorian  tribes  were  found  in  some  cases  united  with 
them,  as  at  Corinth,  Sicyon  and  Argos. 

In  all  cases  the  Grecian  tribe  presupposes  the  gentes,  the 
bond  of  kin  and  of  dialect  forming  the  basis  upon  which  they 
united  in  a  tribe;  but  the  tribe  did  not  presuppose  the  phra- 
try, which,  as  an  intermediate  organization,  although  very  com- 
mon among  all  these  tribes,  was  liable  to  be  intermitted.  At 
Sparta,  there  were  subdivisions  of  the  tribes  called  obes  {(^ftai), 
each  tribe  containing  ten,  which  were  analogous  to  phratries; 
but  concerning  the  functions  of  these  organizations  some  un- 
certainty prevails.^ 

The  Athenian  gentes  will  now  be  considered  as  they  ap- 
peared in  their  ultimate  form  and  in  full  vitality;  but  with  the 

•  Hermann  mentions  the  confederacies  of  .(Egina,  Athens,  Prasia,  Nauplia,  etc. 
—Political  A iitiqiiilies  of  Greece,  Oxford  Trans.,  ch.  i,  s.  il. 

*  "In  the  ancient  Rhetra  of  Lycurgus,  the  tribes  and  obes  are  directed  to  be 
maintained  unaltered  :  but  the  statement  of  O.  Miiller  and  Boeckh — that  there  were 
thirty  obes  in  all,  ten  to  each  tribe, — rests  upon  no  higher  evidence  than  a  peculiar 
punctuation  in  this  Rhetra,  which  various  other  critics  reject ;  and  seemingly  with 
good  reason.  We  are  thus  left  without  any  information  respecting  the  obc,  though 
we  know  that  it  was  an  old  peculiar  and  lasting  division  among  the  Spartan  people." 
— Crete's  History  of  Greece,  Murray's  ed.,  ii,  362.  But  see  Miiller's  Dorians, 
I.  c,  ii,  80. 


220  ANCIENT  SOCIETY. 

elements  of  an  incipient  civilization  arrayed  against  them,  be- 
fore which  they  were  yielding  step  by  step,  and  by  which  they 
were  to  be  overthrown  witli  tlie  social  system  they  created. 
In  some  respects  it  is  the  most  interesting  portion  of  the  his- 
tory of  this  remarkable  organization,  which  had  brought  human 
society  out  of  savagery,  and  carried  it  through  barbarism  into 
the  early  stages  of  civilization. 

The  social  system  of  the  Athenians  exhibits  the  following 
series:  first,  the  gens  {ykvoi)  founded  upon  kin;  second,  the 
phratry  {(pparpa  and   cpparpia),  a  brotherhood  of  gentes  de- 
rived by  segmentation,  probably,  from  an  original  gens;  third, 
the  tribe  {qjvXov,  later  cpvX?}),  composed  of  several  phratries, 
the  members  of  which  spoke  the  same  dialect;  and  fourth,  a 
people  or  nation,  composed  of  several  tribes  united  by  coal- 
escence into  one  gentile  society,  and  occupying  the  same  terri- 
tory.    These  integral  and  ascending  organizations  exhausted 
their  social  system  under  the  gentes,  excepting  the  confeder- 
acy of  tribes  occupying  independent  territories,  which,  although 
it  occurred  in  some  instances  in  the  early  period  and  sprang 
naturally  out  of  gentile  institutions,  led  to  no  important  results. 
It  is  likely  that  the  four  Athenian  tribes  confederated  before 
they  coalesced,  the  last  occurring  after  they  had  collected  in  one 
territory  under  pressure  from  other  tribes.      If  true  of  them,  it 
would  be  equally  true  of  the  Dorian  and  other  tribes.     When 
such  tribes  coalesced  into  a  nation,  there  was  no  term  in  the 
language  to  express  the  result,  beyond  a  national  name.     The 
Romans,  under  very  similar  institutions,  styled  themselves  the 
Populus  Romanus,  which  expressed  the  fact  exactly.      They 
were  then  simply  a  people,  and  nothing  more ;  which  was  all 
that  could  result  from  an  aggregation  of  gentes,  curice    and 
tribes.     The  four  Athenian  tribes  formed  a  society  or  people, 
which  became  completely  autonomous  in  the  legendary  period 
under  the   name   of   the   Athenians.      Throughout   the    early 
Grecian  communities,  the  gens  phratry  and  tribe  were  constant 
phenomena  of  their  social  systems,  with  the  occasional  absence 
of  the  phratry. 

Mr.  Grote  has  collected  the  principal  facts  with  respect  to 
the  Grecian  gentes  with  such  critical  ability  that  they  cannot 


THE  GRECIAN  GENS.  221 

be  presented  in  a  more  authoritative  manner  than  in  his  own 
language,  which  will  be  quoted  where  he  treats  the  subject 
generally.  After  commenting  upon  the  tribal  divisions  of  the 
Greeks,  he  proceeds  as  follows:  "But  the  Phratries  and  Gentes 
are  a  distribution  completely  different  from  this.  They  seem 
aggregations  of  small  primitive  unities  into  larger;  they  are 
independent  of,  and  do  not  presuppose,  the  tribe ;  they  arise 
separately  and  spontaneously,  without  preconcerted  uniformity, 
and  Avithout  reference  to  a  common  political  purpose ;  the  leg- 
islator finds  them  pre-existing,  and  adapts  or  modifies  them  to 
gyiswer  some  national  scheme.  We  must  distinguish  the  general 
fact  of  the  classification,  and  the  successive  subordination  in  the 
scale,  of  the  families  to  the  gens,  of  the  gentes  to  the  phratry, 
and  of  the  phratries  to  the  tribe — from  the  precise  numerical 
symmetry  with  which  this  subordination  is  invested,  as  we  read 
it, — thirty  families  to  a  gens,  thirty  gentes  to  a  phratry,  three 
phratries  to  each  tribe.  If  such  nice  equality  of  numbers 
could  ever  have  been  procured,  by  legislative  constraint,  op- 
erating upon  pre-existent  natural  elements,  the  proportions 
could  not  have  been  permanently  maintained.  But  we  may 
reasonably  doubt  whether  it  did  ever  so  exist.  .  .  .  That 
every  phratry  contained  an  equal  number  of  gentes,  and  every 
gens  an  equal  number  of  families,  is  a  supposition  hardly  admis- 
sible without  better  evidence  than  we  possess.  But  apart  from 
this  questionable  precision  of  numerical  scale,  the  Phratries  and 
Gentes  themselves  were  real,  ancient,  and  durable  associations 
among  the  Athenian  people,  highly  important  to  be  understood. 
The  basis  of  the  whole  was  the  house,  hearth,  or  family, — a 
number.of  which,  greater  or  less,  composed  the  Gens  or  Genos. 
This  gens  was  therefore  a  clan,  sept,  or  enlarged,  and  partly 
y  factitious,  brotherhood,  bound  together  by, —  i.  Common  relig- 
ious ceremonies,  and  exclusive  privilege  of  priesthood,  in  honor 
of  the  same  god,  supposed  to  be  the  primitive  ancestor,  and 
characterized  by  a  special  surname.  2.  By  a  common  burial 
place.^     3.   By  mutual  rights  of  succession  to  property,     4.   By 

:^: ;; :; ~~ be 

'  xairoi  Tii  edriv  odrti  av  ei?  rd     Ttarpcaa  '' 

Hvrfi-iocra  rou?  fxrjdev  h^  yevsi  ziSevra?  Iddai. 
— Demosthenes,  Ettbtilicf 


222  ANCIENT  SOCIETY. 

reciprocal  obligations  of  help,  defense,  and  redress  of  injuries. 
5.  By  mutual  right  and  obligation  to  intermarry  in  certain  de- 
terminate cases,  especially  where  there  was  an  orphan  daughter 
or  heiress.  6.  By  possession,  in  some  cases,  at  least,  of  common 
property,  an  archon  and  treasurer  of  their  own.  Such  were  the 
rights  and  obligations  characterizing  the  gentile  union.  The 
phratric  union,  binding  together  several  gentes,  was  less  inti- 
mate, but  still  included  some  mutual  rights  and  obligations  of 
an  analogous  character;  especially  a  communion  of  particular 
sacred  rites,  and  mutual  privileges  of  prosecution  in  the  event 
of  a  phrator  being  slain.  Each  phratry  was  considered  as 
belonging  to  one  of  the  four  tribes,  and  all  the  phratries  of  the 
same  tribe  enjoyed  a  certain  periodical  communion  of  sacred 
rites  under  the  presidency  of  a  magistrate  called  the  Phylo- 
Basileus  or  tribe-king  selected  from  the  Eupatrids."^ 

The  similarities  between  the  Grecian  and  the  Iroquois  gens 
will  at  once  be  recognized.  Differences  in  characteristics  will 
also  be  perceived,  growing  out  of  the  more  advanced  condition 
of  Grecian  society,  and  a  fuller  development  of  their  religious 
system.  It  will  not  be  necessary  to  verify  the  existence  of  the 
several  attributes  of  the  gens  named  by  Mr.  Grote,  as  the 
proof  is  plain  in  the  classical  authorities.  There  were  other 
characteristics  which  doubtless  pertained  to  the  Grecian  gens, 
although  it  may  be  difficult  to  establish  the  existence  of  all 
of  them;  such  as:  7.  The  limitation  of  descent  to  the  male  line; 
8.  The  prohibition  of  intermarriage  in  the  gens  excepting  in  the 
case  of  heiresses;  9.  The  right  of  adopting  strangers  into  the 
gens;   and  10.  The  right  of  electing  and  deposing  its  chiefs. 

The  rights,  privileges  and  obligations  of  the  members  of  the 
Grecian  gens  may  be  recapitulated,  with  the  additions  named, 
as  follows: 

I.    Common  religious  rites. 

II.  A  common  burial  place. 

III.  Mutual  rig  Jits  of  sticccssiou  to  property  of  deceased  mem- 

bers. 

IV.  Reciprocal  obligations  of  help,  defense  and  redress  of 

injuries. 

'  History  of  Greece,  iii,  53,  et  seq. 


THE  GRECIAN  GENS. 


223 


V.    The  right  to  intermarry  in  the  gens  in  the  eases  of  orphan 
daitgJiters  and  heiresses. 

VI.    The  possession  of  eonunon  property,  an  areJion,  and  a 
treasurer. 
VII.    The  limitation  of  descent  to  the  male  line. 
VIII.    The  obligation  not  to  marry  in  the  gens  exeept  in  speeified 
eases.  - 

IX.    The  right  to  adopt  strangers  into  the  gens. 

X.    The  I'igJit  to  eleet  and  depose  its  chiefs. 

A   brief   reference   to   the   added   characteristics   should   be 
made. 

7.  TJic  limitation  of  descent  to  the  male  line.  There  is  no  doubt 
that  such  was  the  rule,  because  it  is  proved  by  their  genealo- 
gies. I  have  not  been  able  to  find  in  any  Greek  author  a  defi- 
nition of  a  gens  or  of  a  gentilis  that  would  furnish  a  sufficient 
test  of  the  right  of  a  given  person  to  the  gentile  connection. 
Cicero,  Varro  and  Festus  have  defined  the  Roman  gens  and 
gentilis,  which  were  strictly  analogous  to  the  Grecian,  with 
sufficient  fullness  to  show  that  descent  was  in  the  male  line. 
From  the  nature  of  the  gens,  descent  was  either  in  the  female 
line  or  the  male,  and  included  but  a  moiety  of  the  descendants 
of  the  founder.  It  is  precisely  like  the  family  among  ourselves. 
Those  who  are  descended  from  the  males  bear  the  family  name, 
and  they  constitute  a  gens  in  the  full  sense  of  the  term,  but  in 
a  state  of  dispersion,  and  without  any  bond  of  union  excepting 
those  nearest  in  degree.  The  females  lose,  with  their  marriage, 
the  family  name,  and  with  their  children  are  transferred  to  an- 
other family.  Grote  remarks  that  Aristotle  was  the  "son  of 
the  physician  Nikomachus  who  belonged  to  the  gens  of  the 
Asklepiads."^  Whether  Aristotle  was  of  the  gens  of  his  father 
depends  upon  the  further  question  Avhether  they  both  derived 
their  descent  from  Aesculapius,  through  males  exclusively. 
This  is  shown  by  Laertius,  who  states  that  "  Aristotle  was  the 
son  of  Nikomachus  ....  and  Nikomachus  was  descended 
from  Nikomachus  the  son  of  Machaon,  the  son  of  Aescula- 
pius."^    Although  the  higher  members  of  the  series  may  be 

^  History  of  Greece,  iii,  60. 

*  Diogenes,  Laertius,  Vit.  Aristotle,  v,  I. 


224  ANCIENT  SOCIETY. 

fabulous,  the  manner  of  tracing  the  descent  would  show  the 
gens  of  the  person.  The  statement  of  Hermann,  on  the  au- 
thority of  Isaeus,  is  also  to  the  point.  "Every  infant  was  reg- 
istered in  the  phratria  and  clan  iyye.vo<i^  of  its  father."'  Regis- 
tration in  the  gens  of  the  father  implies  that  his  children  were 
of  his  gens. 

8.  TJic  obligation  not  to  marry  in  the  gens  excepting  in  speci- 
fied cases.  This  obligation  may  be  deduced  from  the  conse- 
quences of  marriage.  The  wife  by  her  marriage  lost  the  re- 
ligious rites  of  her  gens,  and  acquired  those  of  her  husband's 
gens.  The  rule  is  stated  as  so  general  as  to  imply  that  mar- 
riage was  usually  out  of  the  gens.  "The  virgin  who  quits  her 
father's  house,"  Wachsmuth  remarks,  "is  no  longer  a  sharer 
of  the  paternal  sacrificial  hearth,  but  enters  the  religious  com- 
munion of  her  husband,  and  this  gave  sanctity  to  the  marriage 
tie."'*  The  fact  of  her  registration  is  stated  by  Hermann  as 
follows:  "Every  newl}^  married  woman,  herself  a  citizen,  was 
on  this  account  enrolled  in  the  phratry  of  her  husband."^  Spe- 
cial religious  rites  (sacra  gentilieia)  were  common  in  the  Gre- 
cian and  Latin  gens.  Whether  the  wife  forfeited  her  agnatic 
rights  by  her  marriage,  as  among  the  Romans,  I  am  unable  to 
state.  It  is  not  probable  that  marriage  severed  all  connection 
with  her  gens,  and  the  wife  doubtless  still  counted  herself  of 
the  gens  of  her  father. 

The  prohibition  of  intermarriage  in  the  gens  was  funda- 
mental in  the  archaic  period;  and  it  undoubtedly  remained 
after  descent  was  changed  to  the  male  line,  with  the  exception 
of  heiresses  and  female  orphans  for  whose  case  special  provision 
was  made.  Although  a  tendency  to  free  marriage,  beyond 
certain  degrees  of  consanguinity,  would  follow  the  complete 
establishment  of  the  monogamian  family,  the  rule  requiring 
persons  to  marry  out  of  their  own  gens  would  be  apt  to  remain 
so  long  as  the  gens  was  the  basis  of  the  social  system.  The 
special  provision  in  respect  to  heiresses  tends  to  confirm  this 
supposition.     Becker  remarks  upon  this  question,  that  "rela- 

'  Political  Antiquities  of  the  Greeks,  c.  v,  s.  lOo;  and  vide  Eiibiilides  of  Demos- 
thenes, 24. 

*  Historical  Antiquities  of  the  Greeks,  Woolrych's  Trans.,  Oxford  ed.,  1837,  i,  451. 
3  Political  Antiquities,  I,  c,  cap.  v,  s.  lOO. 


THE  GRECIAN  GENS. 


225 


tionship  was,  with  trifling  limitations,  no  hinderance  to  marriage, 
which  could  take  place  within  all  degrees  of  ayxiGreia^  or 
Gvyyeveia,  though  naturally  not  in  the  yivoZ  itself."^ 

9.  The  right  to  adopt  strangers  into  the  gejis.  This  right  was 
practiced  at  a  later  day,  at  least  in  fam.ilies;  but  it  was  done 
Avith  public  formalities,  and  was  doubtless  limited  to  special 
cases. '^  Purity  of  lineage  became  a  matter  of  high  concern  in 
the  Attic  gentes,  interposing  no  doubt  serious  obstacles  to  the 
use  of  the  right  except  for  weighty  reasons. 

10.  The  right  to  elect  and  depose  its  chiefs.  This  right  un- 
doubtedly existed  in  the  Grecian  gentes  in  the  early  period. 
Presumptively  it  was  possessed  by  them  while  in  the  Upper 
Status  of  barbarism.  Each  gens  had  its  archon  {pcpx^^),  which 
was  the  common  name  for  a  chief  Whether  the  office  was 
elective,  for  example,  in  the  Homeric  period,  or  was  transmit- 
ted by  hereditary  right  to  the  eldest  son,  is  a  question.  The 
latter  was  not  the  ancient  theory  of  the  office;  and  a  change  so 
great  and  radical,  affecting  the  independence  and  personal 
rights  of  all  the  m.embers  of  the  gens,  requires  positive  proof 
to  override  the  presumption  against  it.  Hereditary  right  to  an 
office,  carrying  with  it  authority  over,  and  obligations  from,  the 
members  of  a  gens  is  a  very  different  thing  from  an  office  be- 
stowed by  a  free  election,  with  the  reserved  power  to  depose  for 
unworthy  behavior.  The  free  spirit  of  the  Athenian  gentes 
down  to  the  time  of  Solon  and  Cleisthenes  forbids  the  supposi- 
tion, as  to  them,  that  they  had  parted  v/ith  a  right  so  vital  to 
the  independence  of  the  members  of  the  gens.  I  have  not 
been  able  to  find  any  satisfactory  explanation  of  the  tenure  of 
this  office.  Hereditary  succession,  if  it  existed,  would  indicate 
a  remarkable  development  of  the  aristocratical  element  in 
ancient  society,  in  derogation  of  the  democratical  constitution 
of  the  gentes.  Moreover,  it  would  be  a  sign  of  the  commence- 
ment, at  least,  of  their  decadence.  All  the  members  of  a 
gens  were  free  and  equal,  the  rich  and  the  poor  enjoying  equal 

•  Charicles,  Metcalfe's  Trans.,  Lond.  ed.,  1866,  p.  477;  citing  Isaetis  de  Cir. 
her.  217:  Demosthenes  adv.  EbtiL,  1304:  Plutarch,  Themist.,  32:  Pajtsanias,  i, 
7,  l:  Achill.  Tat.,  i,  3. 

*  Hermann,  /.  c,  v,  s.  100  and  lOl. 

15 


226  ANCIENT  SOCIETY. 

rights  and  privileges,  and  acknowledging  the  same  in  each 
other.  We  find  liberty,  equality  and  fraternity,  written  as 
plainly  in  the  constitution  of  the  Athenian  gentes  as  in  those 
of  the  Iroquois.  Hereditary  right  to  the  principal  office  of  the 
gens  is  totally  inconsistent  with  the  older  doctrine  of  equal 
rights  and  privileges. 

Whether  the  higher  offices  of  anax,  koiranos,  and  basileus 
were  transmitted  by  hereditary  right  from  father  to  son,  or 
were  elective  or  confirmative  by  a  larger  constituency,  is  also 
a  question.  It  will  be  considered  elsewhere.  The  former 
would  indicate  the  subversion,  as  the  latter  the  conservation, 
of  gentile  institutions.  Without  decisive  evidence  to  the  con- 
trary every  presumption  is  adverse  to  hereditary  right.  Some 
additional  light  will  be  gained  on  this  subject  when  the  Roman 
gentes  are  considered.  A  careful  re-investigation  of  the  tenure 
of  this  office  would,  not  unlikely,  modify  essentially  the  re- 
ceived accounts. 

It  may  be  considered  substantially  assured  that  the  Grecian 
gentes  possessed  the  ten  principal  attributes  named.  All  save 
three,  namely,  descent  in  the  male  line,  marrying  into  the  gens 
in  the  case  of  heiresses,  and  the  possible  transmission  of  the 
highest  military  office  by  hereditary  right,  are  found  with  slight 
variations  in  the  gentes  of  the  Iroquois.  It  is  thus  rendered 
apparent  that  in  the  gentes,  both  the  Grecian  and  the  Iroquois 
tribes  possessed  the  same  original  institution,  the  one  having 
the  gens  in  its  later,  and  the  other  in  its  archaic  form. 

Recurring  now  to  the  quotation  from  Mr.  Grote,  it  may  be 
remarked  that  had  he  been  familiar  with  the  archaic  form 
of  the  gens,  and  with  the  several  forms  of  the  family  anterior 
to  the  monogamian,  he  would  probably  have  modified  essen- 
tially some  portion  of  his  statement.  An  exception  must  be 
taken  to  his  position  that  the  basis  of  the  social  system  of  the 
Greeks  "was  the  house,  hearth,  or  family."  The  form  of  the 
family  in  the  mind  of  the  distinguished  historian  was  evidently 
the  Roman,  under  the  iron-clad  rule  of  a  pater  faviilias,  to 
which  the  Grecian  family  of  the  Homeric  period  approximated 
in  the  complete  domination  of  the  father  over  the  household. 
It  would  have  been  equally  untenable  had  other  and  anterior 


THE  GRECIAN  GENS. 


227 


forms  of  the  family  been  intended.  The  gens,  in  its  origin, 
is  older  than  the  monogamian  family,  older  than  the  syndy- 
asmian,  and  substantially  contemporaneous  with  the  punaluan. 
In  no  sense  was  it  founded  upon  either.  It  does  not  recognize 
the  existence  of  the  family  of  any  form  as  a  constituent  of 
itself  On  the  contrary,  every  family  in  the  archaic  as  well  as 
in  the  later  period,  was  partly  within  and  partly  without  the 
gens,  because  husband  and  wife  must  belong  to  different  gen- 
tes.  The  explanation  is  both  simple  and  complete ;  namely, 
that  the  family  springs  up  independently  of  the  gens  with 
entire  freedom  to  advance  from  a  lower  into  a'  higher  form, 
while  the  gens  is  constant,  as  w^ell  as  the  unit  of  the  social 
system.  The  gens  entered  entire  into  the  phratry,  the  phratry 
entered  entire  into  the  tribe,  and  the  tribe  entered  entire  into 
the  nation  ;  but  the  family  could  not  enter  entire  into  the  gens 
because  husband  and  wife  must  belong  to  different  gentes. 

The  question  here  raised  is  important,  since  not  only  Mr. 
Grote,  but  also  Niebuhr,  Thirlwall,  Maine,  Mommsen,  and 
many  other  able  and  acute  investigators  have  taken  the  same 
position  with  respect  to  the  monogamian  family  of  the  patri- 
archal type  as  the  integer  around  which  society  integrated  in 
the  Grecian  and  Roman  systems.  Nothing  whatever  was 
based  upon  the  family  in  any  of  its  forms,  because  it  was 
incapable  of  entering  a  gens  as  a  v/hole.  The  gens  was  homo- 
geneous and  to  a  great  extent  permanent  in  duration,  and  as 
such,  the  natural  basis  of  a  social  system.  A  family  of  the 
monogamian  type  might  have  become  individualized  and  pow- 
erful in  a  gens,  and  in  society  at  large ;  but  the  gens  never- 
theless did  not  and  could  not  recognize  or  depend  upon  the 
family  as  an  integer  of  itself  The  same  remarks  are  equally 
true  with  respect  to  the  modern  family  and  political  society. 
Although  individuahzed  by  property  rights  and  privileges,  and 
recognized  as  a  legal  entity  by  statutory  enactment,  the  family 
is  not  the  unit  of  the  political  system.  The  state  recognizes 
the  counties  of  which  it  is  composed,  the  county  its  townships, 
but  the  township  takes  no  note  of  the  family;  so  the  nation 
recognized  its  tribes,  the  tribes  its  phratries,  and  the  phratries 
its  gentes  ;  but  the  gens  took  no  note  of  the  family.     In  dealing 


228  ANCIENT  SOCIETY. 

with  the  structure  of  society,  organic  relations  alone  are  to  be 
considered.  The  township  stands  in  the  same  relation  to  polit- 
ical society  that  the  gens  did  to  gentile  society.  Each  is  the 
unit  of  a  system. 

There  are  a  number  of  valuable  observations  by  Mr.  Grote, 
upon  the  Grecian  gentes,  which  I  desire  to  incorporate  as  an 
exposition  of  them ;  although  these  observations  seem  to 
imply  that  they  are  no  older  than  the  then  existing  mythology, 
or  hierarchy  of  the  gods  from  the  members  of  which  some 
of  the  gentes  claimed  to  have  derived  their  eponymous  an- 
cestor. In  the  light  of  the  facts  presented,  the  gentes  are  seen 
to  have  existed  long  before  this  mythology  was  developed — 
before  Jupiter  or  Neptune,  Mars  or  Venus  were  conceived  in 
the  human  mind. 

Mr.  Grote  proceeds:  "Thus  stood  the  primitive  religious 
and  social  union  of  the  population  of  Attica  in  its  gradually 
ascending  scale — as  distinguished  from  the  political  union, 
probably  of  later  introduction,  represented  at  first  by  the 
trittyes  and  naukraries,  and  in  after  times  by  the  ten  Kleisthe- 
nean  tribes,  subdivided  into  trittyes  and  demes.  The  religious 
and  family  bond  of  aggregation  is  the  earlier  of  the  two ;  but 
the  political  bond,  though  beginning  later,  will  be  found  to 
acquire  constantly  increasing  influence  throughout  the  greater 
part  of  this  history.  In  the  former,  personal  relation  is  the 
essential  and  predominant  characteristic — local  relation  being 
subordinate :  in  the  latter,  property  and  residence  become  the 
chief  considerations,  and  the  personal  element  counts  only  as 
measured  along  with  these  accompaniments.  All  these  phra- 
tric  and  gentile  associations,  the  larger  as  well  as  the  smaller, 
were  founded  upon  the  same  principles  and  tendencies  of  the 
Grecian  mind — a  coalescence  of  the  idea  of  worship  with  that 
of  ancestry,  or  of  communion  in  certain  special  religious  rites 
with  communion  of  blood,  real  or  supposed.  The  god  or 
hero,  to  whom  the  assembled  members  offered  their  sacrifices, 
was  conceived  as  the  primitive  ancestor  to  whom  they  owed 
their  origin ;  often  through  a  long  list  of  intermediate  names, 
as  in  the  case  of  the  Milesian  Hekataeus,  so  often  before  re- 
ferred to.      Each  family  had  its  own  sacred  rites  and  funeral 


THE  GRECIAN  GENS.  229 

commemorations  of  ancestors,  celebrated  by  the  master  of  the 
house,  to  which  none  but  members  of  the  family  were  admissi- 
ble. .  .  .  The  larger  associations,  called  gens,  phratry,  tribe, 
were  formed  by  an  extension  of  the  same  principle — of  the 
family  considered  as  a  religious  brotherhood,  worshiping  some 
common  god  or  hero  with  an  appropriate  surname,  and  recog- 
nizing him  as  tlieir  joint  ancestor  ;  and  the  festival  of  Theoenia, 
and  Apaturia  (the  first  Attic,  the  second  common  to  all  the 
Ionian  race)  annually  brought  together  the  members  of  these 
phratries  and  gentes  for  worship,  festivity,  and  maintenance 
of  special  sympathies ;  thus  strengthening  the  larger  ties  with- 
out effacing  the  smaller.  .  .  .  But  the  historian  must  accept 
as  an  ultimate  fact  the  earliest  state  of  things  which  his  wit- 
nesses make  known  to  him,  and  in  the  case  now  before  us, 
the  gentile  and  phratric  unions  are  matters  into  the  beginning 
of  which  we  cannot  pretend  to  penetrate."^ 

"The  gentes  both  at  Athens,  and  in  other  parts  of  Greece, 
bore  a  patronymic  name,  the  stamp  of  their  believed  common 
paternity.^  .  .  .  But  at  Athens,  at  least  after  the  revolution 
of  Kleisthenes,  the  gentile  name  was  not  employed :  a  man 
was  described  by  his  own  single  name,  followed  first  by  the 
name  of  his  father,  and  next  by  that  of  the  deme  to  which  he 
belonged, — as  Aeschines  son  of  Atromctiis,  a  KotJiokid.  .  .  . 
The  gens  constituted  a  close  incorporation,  both  as  to  property 
.and  as  to  persons.  Until  the  time  of  Solon,  no  man  had  any 
power  of  testamentary  disposition.  If  he  died  without  chil- 
dren, his  gennetes  succeeded  to  his  property,  and  so  they 
continued  to  do  even  after  Solon,  if  he  died  intestate.  An 
orphan  girl  might  be  claimed  in  marriage  of  right  by  any 
member  of  the  gens,  the  nearest  agnates  being  preferred  ;   if  she 

'  History  of  Greece,  iii,  55. 

'  "We  find  the  Asklepiadee  in  many  parts  of  Greece — the  Aleuadre  in  Thessaly 
— the  Midylidte,  Psalychidse,  Belpsiada;,  Euxenidae,  at  Aegina — the  Branchidse 
at  Miletus  — the  Nebridse  at  Kos  — the  lamidse  and  Klytiadae  at  Olympia— the 
Akestoridse  at  Argos  — the  Kinyradje  at  Cyprus— the  Penthilidae  at  Mitylene  — 
the  TalthybiadK  at  Sparta — not  less  than  the  Kodridae,  Eumolpidte,  Phytalidre, 
Lykomgdae,  Butadse,  Euneidce,  Hesychidas,  Brytiadje,  etc.,  in  Attica.  To  each 
of  these  corresponded  a  mythical  ancestor  more  or  less  known,  and  passing  for  the 
first  father  as  well  as  the  eponymous  hero  of  the  gens — Kodrus,  Eumolpus,  Butes, 
Phytalus,  Hesychus,  etc." — Grote's  Hist,  of  Greece,  iii,  62. 


230 


ANCIENT  SOCIETY. 


was  poor,  and  he  did  not  choose  to  marry  her  himself,  the  law 
of  Solon  compelled  him  to  provide  her  with  a  dowry  pro- 
portional to  his  enrolled  scale  of  property,  and  to  give  her  out 
in  marriage  to  another.  ...  If  a  man  was  murdered,  first 
his  near  relations,  next  his  gennetes  and  phrators,  were  both 
•allowed  and  required  to  prosecute  the  crime  at  law ;  while  his 
fellow  demots,  or  inhabitants  of  the  same  deme,  did  not  possess 
the  like  right  of  prosecuting.  All  that  we  hear  of  the  most 
ancient  Athenian  laws  is  based  upon  the  gentile  and  phratric 
divisions,  which  are  treated  throughout  as  extensions  of  the 
family.  It  is  to  be  observed  that  this  division  is  completely  inde- 
pendent of  any  property  qualification — rich  men  as  well  as  poor 
being  comprehended  in  the  same  gens.  Moreover,  the  differ- 
ent gentes  were  very  unequal  in  dignity,  arising  chiefly  from 
the  religious  ceremonies  of  which  each  possessed  the  hereditary 
and  exclusive  administration,  and  which,  being  in  some  cases 
considered  of  pre-eminent  sanctity  in  reference  to  the  whole 
city,  were  therefore  nationalized.  Thus  the  Eumolpidae  and 
Kerykes,  who  supplied  the  hicrophant  and  superintendent 
of  the  mysteries  of  the  Eleusinian  Demeter — and  the  Buta- 
dae,  who  furnished  the  priestess  of  Athene  Polias,  as  well  as 
the  priest  of  Poseidon  Erechtheus  in  the  Acropolis — seem  to 
have  been  reverenced  above  all  the  other  gentes."^ 

Mr.  Grote  speaks  of  the  gens  as  an  extension  of  the  family, 
and  as  presupposing  its  existence;  treating  the  family  as  pri- 
mary and  the  gens  as  secondary.  This  view,  for  the  reasons 
stated,  is  untenable.  The  two  organizations  proceed  upon  dif- 
ferent principles  and  are  independent  of  each  other.  The  gens 
embraces  a  part  only  of  the  descendants  of  a  supposed  common 
ancestor,  and  excludes  the  remainder;  it  also  embraces  a  part 
only  of  a  family,  and  excludes  the  remainder.  In  order  to  be 
a  constituent  of  the  gens,  the  family  should  enter  entire  within 
its  folds,  which  was  impossible  in  the  archaic  period,  and  con- 
structive only  in  the  later.  In  the  organization  of  gentile  so- 
ciety the  gens  is  primary,  forming  both  the  basis  and  the  unit 
of  the  system.  The  family  also  is  primary,  and  older  than  the 
gens;   the  punaluan  and  the  consanguine  families  having  pre- 

*  History  of  Greece,  iii,  62,  et  seq. 


THE  GRECIAN  GENS.  23  I 

ceded  it  in  the  order  of  time;  but  it  was  not  a  member  of  the 
organic  series  in  ancient  society  any  more  than  it  is  in  modern. 

The  gens  existed  in  the  Aryan  family  when  the  Latin,  Gre- 
cian and  Sanskrit  speaking  tribes  were  one  people,  as  is  shown 
by  the  presence  in  their  dialects  of  the  same  term  (gens,  yivo<;^ 
and  ganas)  to  express  the  organization.  They  derived  it  from 
their  barbarous  ancestors,  and  more  remotely  from  their  savage 
progenitors.  If  the  Aryan  family  became  differentiated  as 
early  as  the  Middle  Period  of  barbarism,  which  seems  probable, 
the  gens  must  have  been  transmitted  to  them  in  its  archaic 
form.  After  that  event,  and  during  the  long  periods  of  time 
which  elapsed  between  the  separation  of  these  tribes  from  each 
other  and  the  commencement  of  civilization,  those  changes  in 
the  constitution  of  the  gens,  which  have  been  noticed  hypothet- 
ically,  must  have  occurred.  It  is  impossible  to  conceive  of  the 
gens  as  appearing,  for  the  first  "time,  in  any  other  than  its  ar- 
chaic form;  consequently  the  Grecian  gens  must  have  been 
originally  in  this  form.  If,  then,  causes  can  be  found  adequate 
to  account  for  so  great  a  change  of  descent  as  that  from  the  fe- 
male line  to  the  male,  the  argument  will  be  complete,  although 
in  the  end  it  substituted  a  new  body  of  kindred  in  the  gens  in 
place  of  the  old.  The  growth  of  the  idea  of  property,  and  the 
rise  of  monogamy,  furnished  motives  sufficiently  powerful  to 
demand  and  obtain  this  change  in  order  to  bring  children  into 
the  gens  of  their  father,  and  into  a  participation  in  the  inheritance 
of  his  estate.  Monogamy  assured  the  paternity  of  children,  which 
was  unknown  when  the  gens  was  instituted,  and  the  exclusion 
of  children  from  the  inheritance  was  no  longer  possible.  In 
the  face  of  the  new  circumstances,  the  gens  would  be  forced 
into  reconstruction  or  dissolution.  When  the  gens  of  the 
Iroquois,  as  it  appeared  in  the  Lower  Status  of  barbarism,  is 
placed  beside  the  gens  of  the  Grecian  tribes  as  it  appeared  in 
the  Upper  Status,  it  is  impossible  not  to  perceive  that  they  are 
the  same  organization,  the  one  in  its  archaic  and  the  other  in  its 
ultimate  form.  The  differences  between  them  are  precisely 
those  which  would  have  been  forced  upon  the  gens  by  the  ex- 
igencies of  human  progress. 

Along  with  these  mutations  in  the  constitution  of  the  gens 


232 


ANCIENT  SOCIETY. 


are  found  the  parallel  mutations  in  the  rule  of  inheritance. 
Property,  always  hereditary  in  the  gens,  was  first  hereditary 
among  the  gentiles;  secondly,  hereditary  among  the  agnates,  to 
the  exclusion  of  the  remaining  gentiles;  and  now,  thirdly,  he- 
reditary among  the  agnates  in  succession,  in  the  order  of  their 
nearness  to  the  decedent,  which  gave  an  exclusive  inherit- 
ance to  the  children  as  the  nearest  agnates.  The  pertinacity 
with  which  the  principle  was  maintained  down  to  the  time  of 
Solon,  that  the  property  should  remain  in  the  gens  of  the  de- 
ceased owner,  illustrates  the  vitality  of  the  organization  through 
all  these  periods.  It  was  this  rule  which  compelled  the  heiress 
to  marry  in  her  own  gens  to  prevent  a  transfer  of  the  property 
by  her  marriage  to  another  gens.  When  Solon  allowed  the 
owner  of  property  to  dispose  of  it  by  will,  in  case  he  had  no 
children,  he  made  the  first  inroad  upon  the  property  rights  of 
the  gens. 

How  nearly  the  members  of  a  gens  were  related,  or  whether 
they  were  related  at  all,  has  been  made  a  question.      Mr.  Grote 
remarked  that  "Pollux  informs  us  distinctly  that  the  members  of 
the  same  gens  at  Athens  were  not  commonly  related  by  blood, — 
and  even  without  any  express  testimony  we  might  have  con- 
cluded such  to  be  the  fact.     To  what  extent  the  gens,  at  the  un- 
known epoch  of  its  formation  was  based  upon  actual  relation- 
ship, we  have  no  means  of  determining,  either  with  regard  to  the 
Athenian  or  the  Roman  gentes,  which  were  in  the  main  points 
analogous.      Gentilism  is  a  tie  by  itself;  distinct  from  the  family 
ties,  but  presupposing  their  existence  and  extending  them  by 
an   artificial   analogy,  partly  founded   in   religious   belief,  and 
partly  on  positive  compact,  so  as  to  comprehend  strangers  in 
blood.     All  the  members  of  one  gens,  or  even  of  one  phratry, 
believed  themselves  to  be  sprung,  not  indeed  from  the  same 
grandfather  or  great-grandfather,  but  from  the  same  divine  or 
heroic  ancestor.   .   .   .     And  this  fundamental  belief,  into  which 
the  Greek  mind  passed  with  so  much  facility,  was  adopted  and 
converted  by  positive  compact  into  the  gentile  and  phratric  prin- 
ciple of  union.   .   .   .      Doubtless  Niebuhr,  in  his  valuable  discus- 
sion of  the  ancient  Roman  gentes,  is  right  in  supposing  that 
they  were  not  real  families,  procreated  from  any  common  his- 


THE  GRECIAN  GENS.  233 

torical  ancestor.  Still  it  is  not  the  less  true  (although  he  seems 
to  suppose  otherwise)  that  the  idea  of  the  gens  involved  tJw  be- 
lief in  a  common  first  father,  divine  or  heroic — a  genealogy 
which  we  may  properly  call  fabulous,  but  which  was  consecrat- 
ed and  accredited  among  the  members  of  the  gens  itself;  and 
served  as  one  important  bond  of  union  between  them.  .  .  .  The 
natural  families  of  course  changed  from  generation  to  generation, 
some  extending  themselves,  while  others  diminished  or  died 
out;  but  the  gens  received  no  alterations,  except  through  the 
procreation,  extinction,  or  subdivision  of  these  component 
families.  Accordingly  the  relations  of  the  families  with  the  gens 
were  in  perpetual  course  of  fluctuation,  and  the  gentile  ances- 
torial  genealogy,  adapted  as  it  doubtless  was  to  the  early  condi- 
tion of  the  gens,  became  in  process  of  time  partially  obsolete 
and  unsuitable.  We  hear  of  this  genealogy  but  rarely,  because 
it  is  only  brought  before  the  public  in  certain  cases  pre-eminent 
and  venerable.  But  the  humbler  gentes  had  their  common 
rites,  and  common  superhuman  ancestor  and  genealogy,  as 
well  as  the  more  celebrated:  the  scheme  and  ideal  basis  was 
the  same  in  all."^ 

The  several  statements  of  Pollux,  Niebuhr  and  Grote  are 
true  in  a  certain  sense,  but  not  absolutely  so.  The  lineage  of 
a  gens  ran  back  of  the  acknowledged  ancestor,  and  therefore 
the  gens  of  ancient  date  could  not  have  had  a  known  progeni- 
tor; neither  could  the  fact  of  a  blood  connection  be  proved  by 
their  system  of  consanguinity;  nevertheless  the  gentiles  not 
only  believed  in  their  common  descent,  but  were  justified  in  so 
believing.  The  system  of  consanguinity  which  pertained  to 
the  gens  in  its  archaic  form,  and  which  the  Greeks  probably 
once  possessed,  preserved  a  knowledge  of  the  relationships  of 
all  the  members  of  a  gens  to  each  other.  This  fell  into  des- 
uetude with  the  rise  of  the  monogamian  family,  as  I  shall 
endeavor  elsewhere  to  show.  The  gentile  name  created  a  ped- 
igree beside  which  that  of  a  family  was  insignificant.  It  was 
the  function  of  this  name  to  preserve  the  fact  of  the  common 
descent  of  those  who  bore  it;  but  the  lineage  of  the  gens  was 
so  ancient  that  its  members  could  not  prove  the  actual  relation- 

'  Hist,  of  Greece,  iii,  5S,  et  seq. 


234 


ANCIENT  SOCIETY. 


ship  existing  between  them,  except  in  a  limited  number  of 
cases  through  recent  common  ancestors.  The  name  itself  was 
the  evidence  of  a  common  descent,  and  conclusive,  except  as  it 
was  liable  to  interruption  through  the  adoption  of  strangers  in 
blood  in  the  previous  history  of  the  gens.  The  practical  denial 
of  all  relationship  between  its  members  made  by  Pollux  and 
Niebuhr,  which  would  change  the  gens  into  a  purely  fictitious 
association,  has  no  ground  to  rest  upon.  A  large  proportion 
of  the  number  could  prove  their  relationship  through  descent 
from  common  ancestors  within  the  gens,  and  as  to  the  remain- 
der the  gentile  name  they  bore  was  sufficient  evidence  of  com- 
mon descent  for  practical  purposes.  The  Grecian  gens  was 
not  usually  a  large  body  of  persons.  Thirty  families  to  a  gens, 
not  counting  the  wives  of  the  heads  of  families,  would  give,  by 
the  common  rule  of  computation,  an  average  of  one  hundred 
and  twenty  persons  to  the  gens. 

As  the  unit  of  the  organic  social  system,  the  gens  would 
naturally  become  the  centre  of  social  life  and  activity.  It  was 
organized  as  a  social  bod}%  with  its  archon  or  chief,  and  treas- 
urer; having  common  lands  to  some  extent,  a  common  burial 
place,  and  common  religious  rites.  Beside  these  were  the 
rights,  privileges  and  obligations  which  the  gens  conferred  and 
imposed  upon  all  its  members.  It  was  in  the  gens  that  the  re- 
ligious activity  of  the  Greeks  originated,  which  expanded  over 
the  phratries,  and  culminated  in  periodical  festivals  common  to 
all  the  tribes.  This  subject  has  been  admirably  treated  by  M. 
De  Coulanges  in  his  recent  work  on  "The  Ancient  City." 

In  order  to  understand  the  condition  of  Grecian  society,  an- 
terior to  the  formation  of  the  state,  it  is  necessary  to  know  the 
constitution  and  principles  of  the  Grecian  gens;  for  the  char- 
acter of  the  unit  determines  the  character  of  its  compounds  in 
the  ascending  series,  and  can  alone  furnish  the  means  for  their 
explanation. 


CHAPTER  IX. 

THE  GRECIAN    PHRATRY,  TRIBE  AND  NATION. 

The  Athenian  Phratry. — How  Formed. — Definition  of  Dik^earchus. 
— Objects  chiefly  Religious. — The  Phratriarch. — The  Tribe. — Composed 
OF  Three  Phratries. — The  Phylo-Basileus. — The  Nation. — Composed  of 
Four  Tribes. — Boule,  or  Council  of  Chiefs. — Agora,  or  Assembly  of  the 
People. — The  Basileus. — Tenure  of  the  Office. — Military  and  Priestly 
Functions. — Civil  Functions  not  shown. — Governments  of  the  Heroic 
Age,  Military  Democracies. —  Aristotle's  Definition  of  a  Basileus. — 
Later  AtheniaxN  Democracy. — Inherited  from  the  Gentes. — Its  power- 
ful Influence  upon  Athenian  Development. 

The  phratry,  as  we  have  seen,  was  the  second  stage  of  or- 
ganization in  the  Grecian  social  system.  It  consisted  of  several 
gentes  united  for  objects,  especially  religious,  which  were  com- 
mon to  them  all.  It  had  a  natural  foundation  in  the  bond 
of  kin,  as  the  gentes  in  a  phratry  were  probably  subdivisions 
of  an  original  gens,  a  knowledge  of  the  fact  having  been 
preserved  by  tradition.  "All  the  contemporary  members 
of  the  phratry  of  Hekataeus,"  Mr.  Grote  remarks,  "had  a 
common  god  for  their  ancestor  at  the  sixteenth  degree,"^  which 
could  not  have  been  asserted  unless  the  several  gentes  com- 
prised in  the  phratry  of  Hekataeus,  were  supposed  to  be  de- 
rived by  segmentation  from  an  original  gens.  This  genealogy, 
although  in  part  fabulous,  would  be  traced  according  to  gentile 
usages.  Dikaearchus  supposed  that  the  practice  of  certain 
gentes  in  supplying  each  other  with  wives,  led  to  the  phratric 
organization  for  the  performance  of   common  religious  rites. 

'  History  of  Greece,  iii,  58. 


236  ANCIENT  SOCIETY. 

This  is  a  plausible  explanation,  because  such  marriages  would 
intermingle  the  blood  of  the  gentes.  On  the  contrary,  gentes 
formed,  in  the  course  of  time,  by  the  division  of  a  gens  and 
by  subsequent  subdivisions,  would  give  to  all  a  common  lineage, 
and  form  a  natural  basis  for  their  re-integration  in  a  phratry. 
As  such  the  phratry  would  be  a  natural  growth,  and  as  such 
only  can  it  be  explained  as  a  gentile  institution.  The  gentes 
thus  united  were  brother  gentes,  and  the  association  itself  was 
a  brotherhood  as  the  term  imports. 

Stephanus  of  Byzantium  has  preserved  a  fragment  of 
Dikaearchus,  in  which  an  explanation  of  the  origin  of  the 
gens,  phratry  and  tribe  is  suggested.  It  is  not  full  enough, 
with  respect  to  either,  to  amount  to  a  definition ;  but  it  is  valu- 
able as  a  recognition  of  the  three  stages  of  organization  in 
ancient  Grecian  society.  He  uses  patry  {rtaTpa)  in  the  place 
of  gens  {ytvo?),  as  Pindar  did  in  a  number  of  instances,  and 
Homer  occasionally.  The  passage  may  be  rendered:  "Patry 
is  one  of  three  forms  of  social  union  among  the  Greeks,  ac- 
cording to  Dikaearchus,  which  we  call  respectively,  patry,  phra- 
try, and  tribe.  The  patry  comes  into  being  when  relationship, 
originally  solitary,  passes  over  into  the  second  stage  [the  rela- 
tionship of  parents  with  children  and  children  with  parents], 
and  derives  its  eponym  from  the  oldest  and  chief  member  of 
the  patry,  as  Aicidas,  Pelopidas." 

"But  it  came  to  be  called  phatria  and  phratria  when  certain 
ones  gave  their  daughters  to  be  married  into  another  patry. 
For  the  woman  who  was  given  in  marriage  participated  no 
longer  in  her  paternal  sacred  rites,  but  was  enrolled  in  the 
patry  of  her  husband ;  so  that  for  the  union,  formerly  subsist- 
ing by  affection  between  sisters  and  brothers,  there  was  estab- 
lished another  union  based  on  community  of  religious  rites, 
which  they  denominated  a  phratry;  and  so  that  again,  while 
the  patry  took  its  rise  in  the  way  we  have  previously  men- 
tioned, from  the  blood  relation  between  parents  and  children 
and  children  and  parents,  the  phratry  took  its  rise  from  the 
relationship  between  brothers." 

"But  tribe  and  tribesmen  were  so  called  from  the  coalescence 


GRECIAN  PHRATRY,   TRIBE  AND  NATION.  237 

into  communities  and  nations  so  called,  for  each  of  the  coalesc- 
ing bodies  was  called  a  tribe. "^ 

It  will  be  noticed  that  marriage  out  of  the  gens  is  here 
recognized  as  a  custom,  and  that  the  wife  was  enrolled  in  the 
gens,  rather  than  the  phratry,  of  her  husband.  Dikaearchus, 
who  was  a  pupil  of  Aristotle,  lived  at  a  time  when  the  gens 
existed  chiefly  as  a  pedigree  of  individuals,  its  powers  having 
been  transferred  to  new  political  bodies.  He  derived  the  origin 
of  the  gens  from  primitive  times ;  but  his  statement  that  the 
phratry  originated  in  the  matrimonial  practices  of  the  gentes, 
while  true  doubtless  as  to  the  practice,  is  but  an  opinion  as  to 
the  origin  of  the  organization.  Intermarriages,  with  common 
religious  rites,  would  cement  the  phratric  union ;  but  a  more 
satisfactory  foundation  of  the  phratry  may  be  found  in  the 
common  lineage  of  the  gentes  of  which  it  was  composed.  It 
must  be  remembered  that  the  gentes  have  a  history  running 
back  through  the  three  sub-periods  of  barbarism  into  the  pre- 
vious period  of  savagery,  antedating  the  existence  even  of  the 
Aryan  and  Semitic  families.  The  phratry  has  been  shown  to 
have  appeared  among  the  American  aborigines  in  the  Lower 
Status  of  barbarism  ;  while  the  Greeks  were  familiar  with  so 
much  only  of  their  former  history  as  pertained  to  the  Upper 
Status  of  barbarism. 

Mr.  Grote  does  not  attempt  to  define  the  functions  of  the 
phratry,  except  generally.  They  were  doubtless  of  a  religious 
character  chiefly ;  but  they  probably  manifested  themselves,  as 
among  the  Iroquois,  at  the  burial  of  the  dead,  at  public  games, 
at  religious  festivals,  at  councils,  and  at  the  agoras  of  the 
people,  where  the  grouping  of  chiefs  and  people  would  be  by 
phratries  rather  than  by  gentes.  It  would  also  naturally  show 
itself  in  the  array  of  the  military  forces,  of  which  a  memorable 
example  is  given  by  Homer  in  the  address  of  Nestor  to  Aga- 
memnon.^ "Separate  the  troops  by  tribes  and  by  phratries, 
Agamemnon,  so  that  phratry  may  support  phratry,  and  tribes, 
tribes  {xft^'^^'  avdai  nard  q)vXa,  nara  qjpy'jTpaS,  Ayd}.ie)xvoVj 
00^  cppyjrpj]   q)prjrpj]q)iv  apr'jyrj,  qjvXa  6e   cpvXoii).      If  thou 

'  Wachsmuth's  Historical  Antiquities  of  the  Greeks,  I.  c,  i,  449,  app.  for  text. 
*  Iliad,  ii,  362. 


238 


ANCIENT  SOCIETY. 


wilt  thus  act,  and  the  Greeks  obey,  thou  wilt  then  ascertain 
which  of  the  commanders  and  which  of  the  soldiers  is  a 
coward,  and  which  of  them  may  be  brave,  for  they  will  fight 
their  best."  The  number  from  the  same  gens  in  a  military 
force  would  be  too  small  to  be  made  a  basis  in  the  organization 
of  an  army ;  but  the  larger  aggregations  of  the  phratries  and 
tribes  would  be  sufficient.  Two  things  may  be  inferred  from 
the  advice  of  Nestor:  first,  that  the  organization  of  armies  by 
phratries  and  tribes  had  then  ceased  to  be  common ;  and 
secondly,  that  in  ancient  times  it  had  been  the  usual  plan  of 
army  organization,  a  knowledge  of  which  had  not  then  dis- 
appeared. We  have  seen  that  the  Tlascalans  and  Aztecs,  who 
were  in  the  Middle  Status  of  barbarism,  organized  and  sent  out 
their  military  bands  by  phratries  which,  in  their  condition,  was 
probably  the  only  method  in  which  a  military  force  could  be 
organized.  The  ancient  German  tribes  organized  their  armies 
for  battle  on  a  similar  principle.'  It  is  interesting  to  notice 
how  closely  shut  in  the  tribes  of  mankind  have  been  to  the 
theory  of  their  social  system. 

The  obligation  of  blood  revenge,  which  was  turned  at  a  later 
day  into  a  duty  of  prosecuting  the  murderer  before  the  legal 
tribunals,  rested  primarily  upon  the  gens  of  the  slain  person ; 
but  it  was  also  shared  in  by  the  phratry,  and  became  a  phratric 
obligation.^  In  the  Eumenides  of  Aeschylus,  the  Erinnys, 
after  speaking  of  the  slaying  of  his  mother  by  Orestes,  put  the 
question  :  "What  lustral  water  of  his  phrators  shall  await  him?"^ 
which  seems  to  imply  that  if  the  criminal  escaped  punishment 
final  purification  was  performed  by  his  phratry  instead  of  his 
gens.  Moreover,  the  extension  of  the  obligation  from  the 
gens  to  the  phratry  implies  a  common  lineage  of  all  the  gentes 
in  a  phratry. 

Since  the  phratry  was  intermediate  between  the  gens  and 
the  tribe,  and  not  invested  with  governmental  functions,  it  was 
less  fundamental  and  less  important  than  either  of  the  others ; 
but  it  was  a  common,  natural  and  perhaps  necessary  stage 

'  Tacitus,  Germania,  cap.  vii. 

2  Grotc's  Ilislory  of  Greece,  iii,  55.     Tlie  Court  of  Areopagus  took  jurisdiction 
over  homicides. — lb.,  iii,  79. 
5  Uoia  ds  ;j;£/3T'z^  cppatipcov  TtpodSe^srat. — Etim.,  656. 


GRECIAN  PHRA  TR  V,   TRIBE  AiWD  NA  TION. 


239 


of  re-integration  between  the  two.  Could  an  intimate  knowl- 
edge of  the  social  life  of  the  Greeks  in  that  early  period  be 
recovered,  the  phenomena  would  centre  probably  in  the  phra- 
tric  organization  far  more  conspicuously  than  our  scanty  records 
lead  us  to  infer.  It  probably  possessed  more  power  and  influ- 
ence than  is  usually  ascribed  to  it  as  an  organization.  Among 
the  Athenians  it  survived  the  overthrow  of  the  gentes  as  the 
basis  of  a  system,  and  retained,  under  the  new  political  system, 
some  control  over  the  registration  of  citizens,  the  enrollment 
of  marriages  and  the  prosecution  of  the  murderer  of  a  phrator 
before  the  courts. 

It  is  customary  to  speak  of  the  four  Athenian  tribes  as 
divided  each  into  three  phratries,  and  of  each  phratry  as 
divided  into  thirty  gentes ;  but  this  is  merely  for  convenience 
in  description.  A  people  under  gentile  institutions  do  not 
divide  themselves  into  symmetrical  divisions  and  subdivisions. 
The  natural  process  of  their  formation  was  the  exact  reverse 
of  this'  method ;  the  gentes  fell  into  phratries,  and  ultimately 
into  tribes,  which  reunited  in  a  society  or  a  people.  Each  was 
a  natural  growth.  That  the  number  of  gentes  in  each  Athe- 
nian phratry  was  thirty  is  a  remarkable  fact  incapable  of  ex- 
planation by  natural  causes.  A  motive  sufficiently  powerful, 
such  as  a  desire  for  a  symmetrical  organization  of  the  phratries 
and  tribes,  might  lead  to  a  subdivision  of  gentes  by  consent 
until  the  number  was  raised  to  thirty  in  each  of  these  phratries; 
and  when  the  number  in  a  tribe  was  in  excess,  by  the  con- 
solidation of  kindred  gentes  until  the  number  was  reduced  to 
thirty.  A  more  probable  way  would  be  by  the  admission 
of  alien  gentes  into  phratries  needing  an  increase  of  number. 
Having  a  certain  number  of  tribes,  phratries  and  gentes  by 
natural  growth,  the  reduction  of  the  last  two  to  uniformity 
in  the  four  tribes  could  thus  have  been  secured.  Once  cast 
in  this  numerical  scale  of  thirty  gentes  to  a  phratry  and  three 
phratries  to  a  tribe,  the  proportion  might  easily  have  been 
maintained  for  centuries,  except  perhaps  as  to  the  number 
of  gentes  in  each  phratry. 

The  religious  life  of  the  Grecian  tribes  had  its  centre  and 
source  in  the  gentes  and  phratries.     It  must  be  supposed  that 


240 


ANCIENT  SOCIETY. 


in  and  through  these  organizations,  was  perfected  that  marvel- 
ous polytheistic  system,  with  its  hierarchy  of  gods,  its  symbols 
and  forms  of  worship,  which  impressed  so  powerfully  the  mind 
of  the  classical  world.      In  no  small  degree  this  mythology  in- 
spired the  great  achievements  of  the  legendary  and  historical 
periods,  and  created  that  enthusiasm  which  produced  the  temple 
and  ornamental  architecture  in  which  the  modern  world  has 
taken  so  much  delight.      Some  of  the  religious  rites,  which  orig- 
inated in  these  social  aggregates,  were  nationalized  from  the  su- 
perior sanctity  they  were  supposed  to  possess;   thus  showing  to 
what  extent  the  gentes  and  phratries  were  nurseries  of  religion. 
The  events  of  this  extraordinary  period,  the  most  eventful  in 
many  respects  in  the  history  of  the  Aryan  family,  are  lost,  in 
the  main,  to  history.      Legendary  genealogies  and  narratives, 
myths  and  fragments  of  poetry,  concluding  with  the  Homeric 
and  Hesiodic  poems,  make  up  its  literary  remains.      But  their 
institutions,  arts,  inventions,  mythological  system,  in  a  word  the 
substance  of  civilization  which  they  wrought  out  and  brought 
with  them,  were  the  legacy  they  contributed  to  the  new  society 
they  were  destined  to  found.     The  history  of  the  period  may 
yet  be  reconstructed  from  these  various  sources  of  knowledge, 
reproducing  the  main  features  of  gentile  society  as  they  appeared 
shortly  before  the  institution  of  political  society. 

As  the  gens  had  its  archon,  who  officiated  as  its  priest  in  the 
religious  observances  of  the  gens,  so  each  phratry  had  its  phra- 
triarch  {(ppar piapxo'i),  who  presided  at  its  meetings,  and  offi- 
ciated in  the  solemnization  of  its  religious  rites.  "The  phratry," 
observes  M.  De  Coulanges,  "  had  its  assemblies  and  its  tribunals, 
and  could  pass  decrees.  In  it,  as  well  as  in  the  family,  there 
was  a  god,  a  priesthood,  a  legal  tribunal  and  a  government."^ 
The  religious  rites  of  the  phratries  were  an  expansion  of  those 
of  the  gentes  of  which  it  was  composed.  It  is  in  these  direc- 
tions that  attention  should  be  turned  in  order  to  understand  the 
religious  life  of  the  Greeks. 

Next  in  the  ascending  scale  of  organization  was  the  tribe, 
consisting  of  a  number  of  phratries,  each  composed  of  gentes. 
The  persons  in  each  phratry  were  of  the  same  common  lineage, 

'  The  Ancient  City,  Small's  Trans.,  p.  157.     Boston,  Lee  &  Shepard. 


GRECIAN  PHRATRY,   TRIBE  AND  NATION.  24 1 

and  spoke  the  same  dialect.  Among  the  Athenians  as  before 
stated  each  tribe  contained  three  phratries,  which  gave  to  each 
a  similar  organization.  The  tribe  corresponds  with  the  Latin 
tribe,  and  also  with  those  of  the  American  aborigines,  an  in- 
dependent dialect  for  each  tribe  being  necessary  to  render  the 
analogy  with  the  latter  complete.  The  concentration  of  such 
Grecian  tribes  as  had  coalesced  into  a  people,  in  a  small  area, 
tended  to  repress  dialectical  variation,  which  a  subsequent 
written  language  and  literature  tended  still  further  to  arrest. 
Each  tribe  from  antecedent  habits,  however,  was  more  or  less 
localized  in  a  fixed  area,  through  the  requirements  of  a  social 
system  resting  on  personal  relations.  It  seems  probable  that 
each  tribe  had  its  council  of  chiefs,  supreme  in  all  matters  re- 
lating to  the  tribe  exclusively.  But  since  the  functions  and 
powers  of  the  general  council  of  chiefs,  who  administered  the 
general  affairs  of  the  united  tribes,  were  allowed  to  fall  into  ob- 
scurity, it  would  not  be  expected  that  those  of  an  inferior  and 
subordinate  council  Vv'ould  be  preserved.  If  such  a  council  ex- 
isted, which  was  doubtless  the  fact  from  its  necessity  under  their 
social  system,  it  would  have  consisted  of  the  chiefs  of  the  gentes. 
When  the  several  phratries  of  a  tribe  united  in  the  commem- 
oration of  their  religious  observances  it  was  in  their  higher  or- 
ganic constitution  as  a  tribe.  As  such,  they  vv^ere  under  the 
presidency,  as  we  find  it  expressed,  of  a  phylo-basileus,  who 
was  the  principal  chief  of  the  tribe.  Whether  he  acted  as  their 
commander  in  the  military  service  I  am  unable  to  state.  He 
possessed  priestly  functions,  always  inherent  in  the  office  of 
basileus,  and  exercised  a  criminal  jurisdiction  in  cases  of  mur- 
der; whether  to  try  or  to  prosecute  a  murderer,  I  am  unable  to 
state.  The  priestly  and  judicial  functions  attached  to  the  ofifice 
of  basileus  tend  to  explain  the  dignity  it  acquired  in  the  legend- 
ary and  heroic  periods.  But  the  absence  of  civil  functions,  in 
the  strict  sense  of  the  term,  of  the  presence  of  which  we  have 
no  satisfactory  evidence,  is  sufficient  to  render  the  term  king, 
so  constantly  employed  in  history  as  the  equivalent  of  basileus, 
a  misnomer.  Among  the  Athenians  we  have  the  tribe-basileus, 
where  the  term  is  used  by  the  Greeks  themselves  as  legitimately 
as  when  applied  to  the  general  military  commander  of  the  four 
16 


242 


ANCIENT  SOCIETY. 


united  tribes.  When  each  is  described  as  a  king  it  makes  the 
solecism  of  four  tribes  each  under  a  king  separately,  and  the 
four  tribes  together  under  another  king.  There  is  a  larger 
amount  of  fictitious  royalty  here  than  the  occasion  requires. 
Moreover,  when  we  know  that  the  institutions  of  the  Athenians 
at  the  time  were  essentially  democratical  it  becomes  a  carica- 
ture of  Grecian  society.  It  shows  the  propriety  of  returning  to 
simple  and  original  language,  using  the  term  basileus  where  the 
Greeks  used  it,  and  rejecting  king  as  a  false  equivalent.  Mon- 
archy is  incompatible  with  gentilism,  for  the  reason  that  gen- 
tile institutions  are  essentially  democratical.  Every  gens,  phra- 
try  and  tribe  was  a  completely  organized  self-governing  body; 
and  where  several  tribes  coalesced  into  a  nation  the  resulting 
government  would  be  constituted  in  harmony  with  the  princi- 
ples animating  its  constituent  parts. 

The  fourth  and  ultimate  stage  of  organization  was  the  nation 
united  in  a  gentile  society.  Where  several  tribes,  as  those  of 
the  Athenians  and  the  Spartans,  coalesced  into  one  people,  it 
enlarged  the  society,  but  the  aggregate  was  simply  a  more  com- 
plex duplicate  of  a  tribe.  The  tribes  took  the  same  place  in 
the  nation  which  the  phratries  held  in  the  tribe,  and  the  gentes 
in  the  phratry.  There  was  no  name  for  the  organism^  which  was 
simply  a  society  {socictas),  but  in  its  place  a  name  sprang  up 
for  the  people  or  nation.  In  Homer's  description  of  the  forces 
gathered  against  Troy,  specific  names  are  given  to  these  na- 
tions, where  such  existed,  as  Athenians,  yEtolians,  Locrians; 
but  in  other  cases  they  are  described  by  the  name  of  the  city 
or  country  from  which  they  came.  The  ultimate  fact  is  thus 
reached,  that  the  Greeks,  prior  to  the  times  of  Lycurgus  and 
Solon,  had  but  the  four  stages  of  social  organization  (gens, 
phratry,  tribe  and  nation),  which  was  so  nearly  universal  in  an- 
cient society,  and  which  has  been  shown  to  exist,  in  part,  in  the 
Status  of  savagery,  and  complete  in  the  Lower,  in  the  Middle 
and  in  the  Upper  Status  of  barbarism,  and  still  subsisting  after 
civilization  had  commenced.  This  organic  series  expresses  the 
extent  of  the  growth  of  the  idea  of  government  among  man- 

*  Aristotle,  Thucydides,  and  other  writers,  use  the  term  basileia  {(id6iXBia) 
for  the  governments  of  the  heroic  period. 


GRECIAN  PHRA  TR  \  \   TRIBE  AND  NA  TION. 


243 


kind  down  to  the  institution  of  political  society.  Such  was  the 
Grecian  social  system.  It  gave  a  society,  made  up  of  a  series 
of  aggregates  of  persons,  with  whom  the  government  dealt 
through  their  personal  relations  to  a  gens,  phratry  or  tribe.  It 
was  also  a  gentile  society  as  distinguished  from  a  political  soci- 
ety, from  which  it  was  fundamentally  different  and  easily  dis- 
tinguishable. 

The  Athenian  nation  of  the  heroic  age  presents  in  its  gov- 
ernment three  distinct,  and  in  some  sense  co-ordinate,  depart- 
ments or  powers,  namely:  first,  the  council  of  chiefs  {ftovXi]); 
second,  the  agora  (ayopd),  or  assembly  of  the  people;  and 
third,  the  basileus  [fSaffilsv'^),  or  general  military  commander. 
Although  municipal  and  subordinate  military  offices  in  large 
numbers  had  been  created,  from  the  increasing  necessities  of 
their  condition,  the  principal  powers  of  the  government  were 
held  by  the  three  instrumentalities  named.  I  am  unable  to 
discuss  in  an  adequate  manner  the  functions  and  powers  of  the 
council,  the  agora  or  the  basileus,  but  will  content  myself  with 
a  few  suggestions  upon  subjects  grave  enough  to  deserve  re- 
investigation at  the  hands  of  professed  Hellenists. 

I.  The  Council  of  Chiefs.  The  office  of  basileus  in  the  Gre- 
cian tribes  has  attracted  far  more  attention  than  either  the 
council  or  the  agora.  As  a  consequence  it  has  been  unduly 
magnified  while  the  council  and  the  agora  have  either  been  de- 
preciated or  ignored.  We  know,  however,  that  the  council  of 
chiefs  was  a  constant  phenomenon  in  every  Grecian  nation 
from  the  earliest  period  to  which  our  knowledge  extends  down 
to  the  institution  of  political  society.  Its  permanence  as  a 
feature  of  their  social  system  is  conclusive  evidence  that  its 
functions  were  substantial,  and  that  its  powers,  at  least  pre- 
sumptively, w^ere  ultimate  and  supreme.  This  presumption 
arises  from  what  is  known  of  the  archaic  character  and  func- 
tions of  the  council  of  chiefs  under  gentile  institutions,  and 
from  its  vocation.  How  it  was  constituted  in  the  heroic  age, 
and  under  what  tenure  the  office  of  chief  was  held,  we  are  not 
clearly  informed;  but  it  is  a  reasonable  inference  that  the  coun- 
cil was  composed  of  the  chiefs  of  the  gentes.  Since  the  num- 
ber who  formed  the  council  was  usually  less  than  the  number 


244 


ANCIENT  SOCIETY. 


of  gentes,  a  selection  must  have  been  made  in  some  way  from 
the  body  of  chiefs.  In  what  manner  the  selection  was  made 
we  are  not  informed.  The  vocation  of  the  council  as  a  legisla- 
tive body  representing  the  principal  gentes,  and  its  natural 
growth  under  the  gentile  organization,  rendered  it  supreme  in 
the  first  instance,  and  makes  it  probable  that  it  remained  so  to 
the  end  of  its  existence.  The  increasing  importance  of  the 
office  of  basileus,  and  the  new  offices  created  in  their  military 
and  municipal  affairs  with  their  increase  in  numbers  and  in 
wealth,  would  change  somewhat  the  relations  of  the  council  to 
public  affairs,  and  perhaps  diminish  its  importance;  but  it  could 
not  be  overthrown  without  a  radical  change  of  institutions.  It 
seems  probable,  therefore,  that  every  office  of  the  government, 
from  the  highest  to  the  lowest,  remained  accountable  to  the 
council  for  their  official  acts.  The  council  was  fundamental  in 
their  social  system;^  and  the  Greeks  of  the  period  were  free 
self-governing  peoples,  under  institutions  essentially  democrat- 
ical.  A  single  illustration  of  the  existence  of  the  council  may 
be  given  from  Aeschylus,  simply  to  show  that  in  the  Greek 
conception  it  was  always  present  and  ready  to  act.  In  Tke 
Seven  against  Thebes,  Eteocles  is  represented  in  command  of 
the  city,  and  his  brother  Polynices  as  one  of  the  seven  chiefs 
who  had  invested  the  place.  The  assault  was  repelled,  but  the 
brothers  fell  in  a  personal  combat  at  one  of  the  gates.  After 
this  occurrence  a  herald  says:  "It  is  necessary  for  me  to  an- 
nounce the  decree  and  good  pleasure  of  the  councilors  of  the 
people  of  this  city  of  Cadmus.  It  is  resolved,"^  etc.  A  coun- 
cil which  can  make  and  promulgate  a  decree  at  any  moment, 
which  the  people  are  expected  to  obey,  possesses  the  supreme 

'  "^ EXXrjviKov  8k  apa  xal  tovto  to  s^oi  i/v.     roii  yovv  /JadiAsvdiv, 
odoi   re   itarpiovi  dpxdi    itapaXdfioiEv    xal    udovZ  r/   TtXf/Svi   avrr) 
Haradrijdairo   r/yE/xovai,  (iovXEvrrjpiov  r]v  kx   vwv   xparidroov,  a5? 
"OfnjpoZ  TS  xal  oi  TtaXaioraroi  toov  Ttotrftoov  juaprvpovdf    xal  ovx 
(SditF.p  £v  ro2?  Ka3'  ?jndi  xpovoti  av^ddEii  xai  juovoyvcojuovEi  i/dav 
ai  Ti^v  dpxodoov  (iadtXioov  Svvadreiai. — Dionyshis,  2,  xii. 
*  SuHcwvTa  uai  do^avr^  dnayyiXXEiv  jhe  xPV 
Sr/juov  TtpofSovXoii  rf/dSs  Kad/LiEia?  TtoXEOJi- 
^EvEoxXea  juiv  roV5'  fV  Evyoia  x^ovui 
^ditvEiv  e'do^E  yffi  (piXati  xaTadxacpaTd. 

— Aeschylus,  The  Seven  against  Thebes,  1005. 


GRECIAN  PHRA  TR  V,   TRIBE  AND  NA  TION.  245 

powers  of  government.  Aeschylus,  although  dealing  in  this 
case  with  events  in  the  legendary  period,  recognizes  the  coun- 
cil of  chiefs  as  a  necessary  part  of  the  system  of  government 
of  every  Grecian  people.  The  boule  of  ancient  Grecian  society 
was  the  prototype  and  pattern  of  the  senate  under  the  subse- 
quent political  system  of  the  state. 

II.  The  Agora.  Although  an  assembly  of  the  people  be- 
came established  in  the  legendary  period,  with  a  recognized 
power  to  adopt  or  reject  public  measures  submitted  by  the 
council,  it  is  not  as  ancient  as  the  council.  The  latter  came  in 
at  the  institution  of  the  gentes;  but  it  is  doubtful  whether  the 
agora  existed,  with  the  functions  named,  back  of  the  Upper 
Status  of  barbarism.  It  has  been  shown  that  among  the  Iro- 
quois, in  the  Lower  Status,  the  people  presented  their  wishes 
to  the  council  of  chiefs  through  orators  of  their  own  selection, 
and  that  a  popular  influence  was  felt  in  the  affairs  of  the  con- 
federacy; but  an  assembly  of  the  people,  with  the  right  to 
adopt  or  reject  public  measures,  would  evince  an  amount  of 
progress  in  intelligence  and  knowledge  beyond  the  Iroquois. 
When  the  agora  first  appears,  as  represented  in  Homer,  and  in 
the  Greek  Tragedies,  it  had  the  same  characteristics  which  it 
afterwards  maintained  in  the  ecclesia  of  the  Athenians,  and  in 
the  comitia  airiata  of  the  Romans.  It  was  the  prerogative  of 
the  council  of  chiefs  to  mature  public  measures,  and  then  sub- 
mit them  to  the  assembly  of  the  people  for  acceptance  or  re- 
jection, and  'their  decision  was  final.  The  functions  of  the 
agora  were  limited  to  this  single  act.  It  could  neither  origi- 
nate measures,  nor  interfere  in  the  administration  of  affairs; 
but  nevertheless  it  was  a  substantial  power,  emiinently  adapted 
to  the  protection  of  their  liberties.  In  the  heroic  age  certainly, 
and  far  back  in  the  legendary  period,  the  agora  is  a  constant 
phenomenon  among  the  Grecian  tribes,  and,  in  connection  with 
the  council,  is  conclusive  evidence  of  the  democratical  consti- 
tution of  gentile  society  throughout  these  periods.  A  public 
sentiment,  as  we  have  reason  to  suppose,  was  created  among 
the  people  on  all  important  questions,  through  the  exercise  of 
their  intelligence,  which  the  council  of  chiefs  found  it  desirable 
as  well  as  necessary  to  consult,  both  for  the  public  good  and 


246 


ANCIENT  SOCIETY 


for  the  maintenance  of  their  own  authority.  After  hearing 
the  submitted  question  discussed,  the  assembly  of  the  people, 
which  was  free  to  all  who  desired  to  speak,^  made  their  decision 
in  ancient  times  usually  by  a  show  of  hands.^  Through  partici- 
pation in  public  affairs,  which  affected  the  interests  of  all,  the 
people  were  constantly  learning  the  art  of  self-government,  and 
a  portion  of  them,  as  the  Athenians,  were  preparing  themselves 
for  the  full  democracy  subsequently  established  by  the  consti- 
tutions of  Cleislhenes.  The  assembly  of  the  people  to  deliber- 
ate upon  public  questions,  not  unfrequently  derided  as  a  mob 
by  writers  who  were  unable  to  understand  or  appreciate  the 
principle  of  democracy,  was  the  germ  of  the  ecclesia  {aKuXijffia) 
of  the  Athenians,  and  of  the  lower  house  of  modern  legislative 
bodies. 

III.  The  Basilcns.  This  officer  became  a  conspicuous  char- 
acter in  the  Grecian  society  of  the  heroic  age,  and  was  equally 
prominent  in  the  legendary  period.  He  has  been  placed  by 
historians  in  the  centre  of  the  system.  The  name  of  the  office 
[fiaaiXevi)  was  used  by  the  best  Grecian  writers  to  character- 
ize the  government,  which  was  styled  a  basileia  {(SaGiXsiay 
Modern  writers,  almost  without  exception,  translate  basileus  by 
the  term  king,  and  basileia  by  the  term  kingdom,  without  qual- 
ification, and  as  exact  equivalents.  I  wish  to  call  attention  to 
this  office  of  basileus,  as  it  existed  in  the  Grecian  tribes,  and  to 
question  the  correctness  of  this  interpretation.  There  is  no 
similarity  whatever  between  the  basileia  of  the  ancient  Athe- 
nians and  the  modern  kingdom  or  monarchy;  certainly  not 
enough  to  justify  the  use  of  the  same  term  to  describe  both. 
Our  idea  of  a  kingly  government  is  essentially  of  a  type  in 
which  a  king,  surrounded  by  a  privileged  and  titled  class  in  the 
ownership  and  possession  of  the  lands,  rules  according  to  his 
own  will  and  pleasure  by  edicts  and  decrees ;  claiming  an 
hereditary  right  to  rule,  because  he  cannot  allege  the  consent 
of  the  governed.      Such  governments  have  been  self-imposed 

1  Euripides,  Orestes,  S84. 

'  navdrjuia  yap  x^P'^^  Se^jcjviJfioi? 
eq>iJi^Ev  ai^rjfj  x6v6e  Hpatvovroov  Xoyov. 

— Aeschylus,  The  Suppliants,  607. 


GRECIAN  PHRA  TR  V,   TRIBE  AND  NA  TION.  247 

through  the  principle  of  hereditary  right,  to  which  the  priest- 
hood have  sought  to  superadd  a  divine  right.  The  Tudor 
kings  of  England  and  the  Bourbon  kings  of  France  are  illus- 
trations. Constitutional  monarchy  is  a  modern  development, 
and  essentially  different  from  the  basileia  of  the  Greeks.  The 
basileia  was  neither  an  absolute  nor  a  constitutional  monarchy; 
neither  was  it  a  tyranny  or  a  despotism.  The  question  then 
is,  what  was  it. 

Mr.  Grote  claims  that  "the  primitive  Grecian  government  is 
essentially  monarchical,  reposing  on  personal  feeling  and  di- 
vine right; "^  and  to  confirm  this  view  he  remarks  further,  that 
"  the  memorable  dictum  in  the  Iliad  is  borne  out  by  all  that 
we  hear  in  actual  practice:  'the  rule  of  many  is  not  a  good 
thing;  let  us  have  one  ruler  only — one  king — him  to  whom 
Zeus  has  given  the  sceptre,  with  the  tutelary  sanctions.'"^ 
This  opinion  is  not  peculiar  to  Mr.  Grote,  whose  eminence  as  a 
historian  all  delight  to  recognize;  but  it  has  been  steadily  and 
generally  affirmed  by  historical  writers  on  Grecian  themes,  un- 
til it  has  come  to  be  accepted  as  historical  truth.  Our  views 
upon  Grecian  and  Roman  questions  have  been  moulded  by 
writers  accustomed  to  monarchical  government  and  privileged 
classes,  who  were  perhaps  glad  to  appeal  to  the  earliest  known 
governments  of  the  Grecian  tribes  for  a  sanction  of  this  form 
of  government,  as  at  once  natural,  essential  and  primitive. 

The  true  statement,  as  it  seems  to  an  American,  is  pre- 
cisely the  reverse  of  Mr.  Grote's;  namely,  that  the  primitive 
Grecian  government  was  essentially  democratical,  reposing  on 
gentes,  phratries  and  tribes,  organized  as  self-governing  bod- 
ies, and  on  the  principles  of  liberty,  equality  and  fraternity. 
This  is  borne  out  by  all  we  know  of  the  gentile  organization, 
which  has  been  shown  to  rest  on  principles  essentially  demo- 
cratical. The  question  then  is,  whether  the  office  of  basileus 
passed  in  reality  from  father  to  son  by  hereditary  right;  which, 
if  true,  would  tend  to  show  a  subversion  of  these  principles. 
We  have  seen  that  in  the  Lower  Status  of  barbarism  the  office  of 
chief  was  hereditary  in  a  gens,  by  which  is  meant  that  the  va- 

*  History  of  Greece,  ii,  69. 

2  History  of  Greece,  ii,  69,  and  Iliad,  ii,  204. 


248 


ANCIENT  SOCIETY. 


cancy  was  filled  from  the  members  of  the  gens  as  often  as  it 
occurred.     Where  descent  was  in  the  female  hne,  as  among 
the  Iroquois,  an  own  brother  was  usually  selected  to  succeed 
the  deceased  chief,  and  where  descent  was  in  the  male  line,  as 
\  among  the  Ojibwas  and  Omahas,  the  oldest  son.      In  the  ab- 
/  sence  of  objections  to  the  person  such  became  the  rule;  but 
the  elective  principle  remained,  which  was  the  essence  of  self- 
government.      It  cannot  be  claimed^n  satisfactory  proof,  that 
theoldest  son  of_the  basileus_took  the  office,  upon  the  deniise 
of  liis  father,  by  absolute  heredjtaryjig^^^t!/|rhis  is  the  essen- 
tial fact;   and  it  requires  conclusive  proof  for  its  establishment. 
The  fact  that  the  oldest,  or  one  of  the  sons,  usually  succeeded, 
which  is  admitted,  does  not  establish  the  fact  in  question;  be- 
cause by  usage  he  was  in  the  probable  line  of  succession  by  a 
free  election  from  a  constituency.     The  presumption,  on  the 
face  of  Grecian  institutions,  is  against  succession  to  the  office 
of  basileus  by  hereditary  right;   and  in  favor  either  of  a^  free 
election,  or  of  a  confirmation  of  the  office  by  the  people  through 
/  their  recognized_organizations,  as  in  the  case  of  the   Roman^ 
'^   relcT     With  the  office  of  basileus  transmitted  in  the  manner 
i    last  named,  the  government  would  remain  in  the  hands  of  the 
I  people.      Because  without  an  election  or  confirmation  he  could 
\  not  assume  the  office;    and  because  further,  the  power  to  elect 
or  confirm  implies  the  reserved  right  to  depose. 

The  illustration  of  Mr.  Grote,  drawn  from  the  Iliad,  is  with- 
out significance  on  the  question  made.  Ulysses,  from  whose 
address  the  quotation  is  taken,  was  .speaking  of  the  command 
of  an  army  before  a  besieged  city.  He  might  well  say:  "All 
the  Greeks  cannot  by  any  means  rule  here.  The  rule  of  many 
is  not  a  good  thing.  Let  us  have  one  koiranos,  one  basileus, 
to  whom  Zeus  has  given  the  sceptre,  and  the  divine  sanctions  in 
order  that  he  may  command  us."^     Koiranos  and  basileus  are 

'  Mr.  Gladstone,  who  presents  to  his  readers  the  Grecian  chiefs  of  the  heroic 
age  as  kings  and  princes,  with  the  superadded  quahties  of  gentlemen,  is  forced  to 
admit  that  "on  the  whole  we  seem  to  have  the  custom  or  law  of  primogeniture 
sufficiently,  but  not  oversharply  defined." — yuvcntiis  Mtmdi,  Little  &  Brown's 
ed.,  p.  42S. 

*  Ov  i-iEV  TCGDi  TtavTE?  BadtA-Evdojiiey  evBdS^  Axocioi. 
ovH  dya^Qv  7toXvHoipavi7j-    sh  HoipavoZ  edtoo. 


I 


GRECIAN  PHRA  TR  V,   TRIBE  AND  NA  TION.  249 

used  as  equivalents,  because  both  alike  signified  a  general  mil- 
itary commander.  There  was  no  occasion  for  Ulysses  to  dis- 
cuss or  endorse  any  plan  of  government;  but  he  had  sufficient 
reasons  for  advocating  obedience  to  a  single  commander  of  the 
army  before  a  besieged  city. 

Basileia  may  be  defined  as  a  military  democracy,  the  people 
being  free,  and  the  spirit  of  the  government,  which  is  the  es- 
sential thing,  being  democratical.  The  basileus  w^as  their  gen- 
eral, holding  the  highest,  the  most  influential  and  the  most 
important  office  known  to  their  social  system.  For  the  want 
of  a  better  term  to  describe  the  government,  basileia  was 
adopted  by  Grecian  writers,  because  it  carried  the  idea  of  a 
generalship  which  had  then  become  a  conspicuous  feature  in 
the  go\'ernment.  With  the  council  and  the  agora  both  existing 
with  the  basileus,  if  a  more  special  definition  of  this  form  of 
government  is  required,  military  democracy  expresses  it  with 
at  least  reasonable  correctness;  while  the  use  of  the  term  king- 
dom, with  the  meaning  it  necessarily  conveys,  would  be  a  mis- 
nomer. 

In  the  heroic  age  the  Grecian  tribes  were  living  in  walled 
cities,  and  were  becoming  numerous  and  wealthy  through  field 
agriculture,  manufacturing  industries,  and  flocks  and  herds. 
New  offices  were  required,  a§  well  as  some  degree  of  separation 
of  their  functions;  and  a  new  municipal  system  was  growing 
up  apace  with  their  increasing  intelligence  and  necessities.  It 
was  also  a  period  of  incessant  military  strife  for  the  possession 
of  the  most  desirable  areas.  Along  with  the  increase  of  prop- 
erty the  aristocratic  element  in  society  undoubtedly  increased, 
and  was  the  chief  cause  of  those  disturbances  which  prevailed 
in  Athenian  society  from  the  time  of  Theseus  to  the  times  of 
Solon  and  Cleisthenes.  During  this  period,  and  until  the  final 
abolition  of  the  office  some  time  before  the  first  Olympiad, 
{jlG  B.  C.)  the  basileus,  from  the  character  of  his  office  and 
from  the  state  of  the  times,  became  more  prominent  and  more 


£f5  ftadiXevi,  ta  eScoxs  Kpovov  Ttal?  dyKvXojujjrEGO. 
\_6HfjnTp6v  r'  vryh  ^ejuidrai,  iva  d<pi6i  /jadiXsv^.l 

— //ia(/,  ii,  203. 
The  words  in. brackets  are  not  found  in  several  MS.,  for  example,  in  the  com- 
mentary of  Eustasius. 


250 


ANCIENT  SOCIETY. 


powerful  than  any  single  person  in  their  previous  experience. 
The  functions  of  a  priest  and  of  a  judge  were  attached  to  or 
inherent  in  his  office;  and  he  seems  to  have  been  ex  officio  a 
member  of  the  council  of  chiefs.  It  was  a  great  as  well  as  a 
necessary  office,  with  the  powers  of  a  general  over  the  army  in 
the  field,  and  over  the  garrison  in  the  city,  which  gave  him  the 
means  of  acquiring  influence  in  civil  affairs  as  well.  But  it 
does  not  appear  that  he  possessed  civil  functions.  Prof  Mason 
remarks,  that  "our  information  respecting  the  Grecian  kings  in 
the  more  historical  age  is  not  ample  or  minute  enough  to  ena- 
ble us  to  draw  out  a  detailed  scheme  of  their  functions."  "^  The 
military  and  priestly  functions  of  the  basileus  are  tolerably  well 
understood,  the  judicial  imperfectly,  and  the  civil  functions  can- 
not properly  be  said  to  have  existed.  The  powers  of  such  an 
office  under  gentile  institutions  would  gradually  become  defined 
by  the  usage  of  experience,  but  with  a  constant  tendency  in 
the  basileus  to  assume  new  ones  dangerous  to  society.  Since 
the  council  of  chiefs  remained  as  a  constituent  element  of  the 
government,  it  may  be  said  to  have  represented  the  democratic 
principles  of  their  social  system,  as  well  as  the  gentes,  while 
the  basileus  soon  came  to  represent  the  aristocratic  principle. 
It  is  probable  that  a  perpetual  struggle  was  maintained  between 
the  council  and  the  basileus,  to  hold  the  latter  within  the  limits 
of  powers  the  people  were  willing  to  concede  to  the  office. 
Moreover,  the  abolition  of  the  office  by  the  Athenians  makes 
it  probable  that  they  found  the  office  unmanageable,  and  in- 
compatible with  gentile  institutions,  from  the  tendency  to  usurp 
additional  powers. 

Among  the  Spartan  tribes  the  ephoralty  was  instituted  at  a 
very  early  period  to  limit  the  powers  of  the  basilcis  in  conse- 
quence of  a  similar  experience.  Although  the  functions  of  the 
council  in  the  Homeric  and  the  legendary  periods  are  not  ac- 
curately known,  its  constant  presence  is  evidence  sufficient  that 
its  powers  were  real,  essential  and  permanent.  With  the  si- 
multaneous existence  of  the  agora,  and  in  the  absence  of  proof 
of  a  change  of  institutions,  we  are  led  to  the  conclusion  that  the 
council,  under    established  usages,  was  supreme  over  gentes, 

*  Smith's  Die,  Art.  Hex,  p.  991. 


GRECIAN  PHRA  TR  V,   TRIBE  AND  NA  TION.  25  I 

phratries,  tribes  and  nation,  and  that  the  basileus  was  amen- 
able to  this  council  for  his  official  acts.  The  freedom  of  the 
gentes,  of  whom  the  members  of  the  council  were  representa- 
tives, presupposes  the  independence  of  the  council,  as  well  as  its 
supremacy. 

Thucydides  refers  incidentall}-  to  the  governments  of  the  tra- 
ditionary period,  as  follows:  "Now  when  the  Greeks  were  be- 
coming more  powerful,  and  acquiring  possession  of  property 
still  more  than  before;  many  tyrannies  were  established  in  the 
cities,  from  their  revenues  becoming  greater;  whereas  before 
there  had  been  hereditary  basileia  with  specified  powers." 
[Ttporspov  6e  hffav  ini  prjroiS  yipaffi  narpiKcxi  fiaaikeiai)^ 
The  office  was  hereditary  in  the  sense  of  perpetual  because  it 
was  filled  as  often  as  a  vacancy  occurred,  but  probably  hered- 
itary in  a  gens,  the  choice  being  by  a  free  election  by  his  gen- 
netes,  or  by  nomination  possibly  by  the  council,  and  confir- 
mation of  the  gentes,  as  in  the  case  of  the  rex  of  the  Romans. 

Aristotle  has  given  the  most  satisfactory  definition  of  the  bas- 
ileia and  of  the  basileus  of  the  heroic  period  of  any  of  the  Gre- 
cian writers.  These  then  are  the  four  kinds  of  basileia  he 
remarks:  the  first  is  that  of  the  heroic  times,  which  was  a  gov- 
ernment over  a  free  people,  with  restricted  rights  in  some  par- 
ticulars; for  the  basileus  was  their  general,  their  judge  and 
their  chief  priest.  The  second,  that  of  the  barbarians,  which  is 
an  hereditary  despotic  government,  regulated  by  laws;  the  third 
is  that  which  they  call  Aesymnetic,  which  is  an  elective  tyr- 
anny. The  fourth  is  the  Lacedaemonian,  which  is  nothing 
more  than  an  hereditary  generalship.^  Whatever  may  be  said 
of  the  last  three  forms,  the  first  does  not  answer  to  the  idea  of  a 
kingdom  of  the  absolute  type,  nor  to  any  recognizable  form  of 
monarchy.      Aristotle  enumerates  with  striking  clearness    the 

*  Thucydides,  i,  13. 

*  /SadiXsiai  jiiev  ovv  Ei8rj  ravra  rsTzapa  rov  dpi$/u6v,  juia  jusv  rj 
mpi  rovi  ripooiHovi  xpovovi-  avvi]  6'  r/v  exovrcoy  /<£r,  ini  ridi  5' 
ooptd/iisvojv  drpazriydi  yap  rjv  xai  dixadrr}?  6  ftadiXsvi  xai  T(^v 
Kpoi  Seovi  Hvptoi.  /lEvzepa  8k  r/  fjapftapixT)  avrrf  8'  tdziv  ku  yevov^ 
dpxrf  SEdTtoziHTf  nazd  vojuov.  Toiztj  8k  ijv  aidvnvr]ziav  Ttpodayo- 
pevovdiv  avzrj  <5'  Idziv  aipr/zr)  zvpavrii.  Jstdpzrf  6'  r)  AaxGovtm) 
Tovzoov  avrrj  5'  kdziv,  oJs  einsivS'  aTT/lcJ?,  dzpaz7]yia  xazd  yivoi 
diSio?. — Aristotle,  Politics,  iii,  c.  x. 


252 


ANCIENT  SOCIETY. 


principal  functions  of  the  basileus,  neither  of  which  imply  civil 
powers,  and  all  of  which  are  consistent  with  an  office  for  life,  held 
by  an  elective  tenure.  They  are  also  consistent  with  his  entire 
subordination  to  the  council  of  chiefs.  The  "restricted  rights," 
and  the  "specified  powers"  in  the  definitions  of  these  authors, 
tend  to  show  that  the  government  had  grown  into  this  form  in 
harmony  with,  as  well  as  under,  gentile  institutions.  The  essen- 
tial element  in  the  definition  of  Aristotle  is  the  freedom  of  the 
people,  which  in  ancient  society  implies  that  the  people  held 
the  powers  of  the  government  under  their  control,  that  the 
office  of  basileus  was  voluntarily  bestowed,  and  that  it  could 
be  recalled  for  sufficient  cause.  Such  a  government  as  that  de- 
scribed by  Aristotle  can  be  understood  as  a  military  democracy, 
which,  as  a  form  of  government  under  free  institutions,  grew 
naturally  out  of  the  gentile  organization  when  the  military 
spirit  was  dominant,  when  wealth  and  numbers  appeared,  with 
habitual  life  in  fortified  cities,  and  before  experience  had  pre- 
pared the  way  for  a  pure  democracy. 

Under  gentile  institutions,  with  a  people  composed  of  gentes, 
phfatries  and  tribes,  each  organized  as  independent  self-govern- 
ing bodies,  the  people  would  necessarily  be  free.  The  rule 
of  a  king  by  hereditary  right  and  without  direct  accountability 
in  such  a  society  was  simply  impossible.  The  impossibility 
arises  from  the  fact  that  gentile  institutions  are  incompatible 
with  a  king  or  with  a  kingly  government.  It  would  require, 
what  I  think  cannot  be  furnished,  positive  proof  of  absolute 
hereditary  right  in  the  office  of  basileus,  with  the  presence 
of  civil  functions,  to  overcome  the  presumption  which  arises 
from  the  structure  and  principles  of  ancient  Grecian  society. 
An  Englishman,  under  his  constitutional  monarchy,  is  as  free 
as  an  American  under  the  republic,  and  his  rights  and  liberties 
are  as  well  protected  ;  but  he  owes  that  freedom  and  protection 
to  a  body  of  written  laws,  created  by  legislation  and  enforced 
by  courts  of  justice.  In  ancient  Grecian  society,  usages  and 
customs  supplied  the  place  of  written  laws,  and  the  person 
depended  for  his  freedom  and  protection  upon  the  institutions 
of  his  social  system.  His  safeguard  was  pre-eminently  in  such 
institutions  as  the  elective  tenure  of  office  implies. 


GRECIAN  PHRATRY,   TRIBE  AND  NATION  253 

The  reges  of  the  Romans  were,  in  like  manner,  military 
commanders,  with  priestly  functions  attached  to  their  office ; 
and  this  so-called  kingly  government  falls  into  the  same  cate- 
gory of  a  military  democracy.  The  rex,  as  before  stated,  was 
nominated  by  the  senate,  and  confirmed  by  the  comitia  ciiriata; 
and  the  last  of  the  number  was  deposed.  With  his  deposition 
the  office  was  abolished,  as  incompatible  with  what  remained 
of  the  democratic  principle,  after  the  institution  of  Roman 
political  society. 

The  nearest  analogues  of  kingdoms  among  the  Grecian 
tribes  were  the  tyrannies,  which  sprang  up  here  and  there,  in 
the  early  period,  in  different  parts  of  Greece.  They  were 
governments  imposed  by  force,  and  the  power  claimed  was  no 
greater  than  that  of  the  feudal  kings  of  mediaeval  times.  A 
transmission  of  tlie  office  from  father  to  son  through  a  few 
generations  in  order  to  superadd  hereditary  right  was  needed 
to  complete  the  analogy.  But  such  governments  were  so 
inconsistent  with  Grecian  ideas,  and  so  alien  to  their  democratic 
institutions,  that  none  of  them  obtained  a  permanent  footing 
in  Greece.  Mr.  Grote  remarks  that  "if  any  energetic  man 
could  by  audacity  or  craft  break  down  the  constitution  and 
render  himself  permanent  ruler  according  to  his  own  will  and 
pleasure — even  though  he  might  rule  well — he  could  never 
inspire  the  people  with  any  sentiment  of  duty  towards  him. 
His  sceptre  was  illegitimate  from  the  beginning,  and  even  the 
taking  of  his  life,  far  from  being  interdicted  by  that  moral 
feeling  which  condemned  the  shedder  of  blood  in  other  cases, 
was  considered  meritorious."^  It  was  not  so  much  the  illegit- 
imate sceptre  which  aroused  the  hostility  of  the  Greeks,  as  the 
antagonism  of  democratical  with  monarchical  ideas,  the  former 
of  which  were  inherited  from  the  gentes. 

When  the  Athenians  established  the  new  political  system, 
founded  upon  territory  and  upon  property,  the  government  was 
a  pure  democracy.  It  was  no  new  theory,  or  special  inven- 
tion of  the  Athenian  mind,  but  an  old  and  familiar  system,  with 
an  antiquity  as  great  as  that  of  the  gentes  themselves.  Demo- 
cratic ideas  had  existed  in  the  knowledge  and  practice  of  their 

'  History  of  Greece,  ii,  61,  and  see  69. 


254  ANCIENT  SOCIETY. 

forefathers  from  time  immemorial,  and  now  found  expression  in 
a  more  elaborate,  and,  in  many  respects,  in  an  improved  gov- 
ernment. The  false  element,  that  of  aristocracy,  which  had 
penetrated  the  system  and  created  much  of  the  strife  in  the 
transitional  period  connected  itself  with  the  office  of  basileus, 
and  remained  after  this  office  was  abolished;  but  the  new  sys- 
tem accomplished  its  overthrow.  More  successfully  than  the 
remaining  Grecian  tribes,  the  Athenians  were  able  to  carry 
forward  their  ideas  of  government  to  their  logical  results.  It 
is  one  reason  why  they  became,  for  their  numbers,  the  most 
distinguished,  the  most  intellectual  and  the  most  accomplished 
race  of  men  the  entire  human  family  has  yet  produced.  In 
purely  intellectual  achievements  they  are  still  the  astonishment 
of  mankind.  It  was  because  the  ideas  which  had  been  ger- 
minating through  the  previous  ethnical  period,  and  which  had 
become  interwoven  with  every  fibre  of  their  brains,  had  found 
a  happy  fruition  in  a  democratically  constituted  state.  Under 
its  life-giving  impulses  their  highest  mental  development  oc- 
curred. 

The  plan  of  government  instituted  by  Cleisthenes  rejected 
the  office  of  a  chief  executive  magistrate,  while  it  retained  the 
council  of  chiefs  in  an  elective  senate,  and  the  agora  in  the  pop- 
ular assembly.  It  is  evident  that  the  council,  the  agora  and 
the  basileus  of  the  gentes  were  the  germs  of  the  senate,  the 
popular  assembly,  and  the  chief  executive  magistrate  (king, 
emperor  and  president)  of  modern  political  society.  The  latter 
office  sprang  from  the  military  necessities  of  organized  society, 
and  its  development  with  the  upward  progress  of  mankind  is 
instructive.  It  can  be  traced  from  the  common  war-chief,  first 
to  the  Great  War  Soldier,  as  in  the  Iroquois  Confederacy; 
secondly,  to  the  same  military  commander  in  a  confederacy 
of  tribes  more  advanced,  with  the  functions  of  a  priest  at- 
tached to  the  office,  as  the  Teuctii  of  the  Aztec  Confeder- 
acy; thirdly,  to  the  same  military  commander  in  a  nation 
formed  by  a  coalescence  of  tribes,  with  the  functions  of  a  priest 
and  of  a  judge  attached  to  the  office,  as  in  the  basileus  of  the 
Greeks;  and  finally,  to  the  chief  magistrate  in  modern  political 
society.     The  elective  archon  of  the  Athenians,  who  succeeded 


GRECIAN  PHRATRY,   TRIBE  AND  NATION.  255 

the  basileus,  and  the  president  of  modern  repubhcs,  from  the 
elective  tenure  of  the  office,  -were  the  natural  outcome  of  gen- 
tilism.  We  are  indebted  to  the  experience  of  barbarians  for 
instituting  and  developing  the  three  principal  instrumentalities 
of  government  now  so  generally  incorporated  in  the  plan  of 
government  in  civilized  states.  The  human  mind,  specifically 
the  same  in  all  individuals  in  all  the  tribes  and  nations  of  man- 
kind, and  limited  in  the  range  of  its  powers,  works  and  must 
work,  in  the  same  uniform  channels,  and  within  narrow  limits 
of  variation.  Its  results  in  disconnected  regions  of  space,  and 
in  widely  separated  ages  of  time,  articulate  in  a  logically  con- 
nected chain  of  common  experiences.  In  the  grand  aggregate 
may  still  be  recognized  the  few  primary  germs  of  thought, 
working  upon  primary  human  necessities,  which,  through  the 
natural  process  of  development,  have  produced  such  vast  re- 
sults. 


CHAPTER  X. 

THE   INSTITUTION    OF    GRECIAN    POLITICAL    SOCIETY. 

Failure  of  the  Gentes  as  a  Basis  of  Government. — Legislation  of 
Theseus. — Attempted  Substitution  of  Classes. — Its  Failure. — Abolition 
OF  the  Office  of  Basileus. — The  Archonship. — NaucrariesandTryttyes. 
— Legislation  of  Solon. — The  Property  Classes. — Partial  Transfer  of 
Civil  Power  from  the  Gentes  to  the  Classes. — Persons  unattached  to 
ANY  Gens. — Made  Citizens. — The  Senate. — The  Ecclesia. — Political  So- 
ciety PARTIALLY  ATTAINED. — LEGISLATION   OF  ClEISTHENES. — INSTITUTION  OF 

Political  Society. — The  Attic  Deme  or  Township. — Its  Organization 
AND  Powers.— Its  Local  Self-government. — The  Local  Tribe  or  Dis- 
trict.— The  Attic  Commonwealth. — Athenian  Democracy. 

The  several  Grecian  communities  passed  through  a  substan- 
tially similar  experience  in  transferring  themselves  from  gentile 
into  political  society;  but  the  mode  of  transition  can  be  best 
illustrated  from  Athenian  history,  because  the  facts  with  re- 
spect to  the  Athenians  are  more  fully  preserved.  A  bare  out- 
line of  the  material  events  will  answer  the  object  in  view,  as  it 
is  not  proposed  to  follow  the  growth  of  the  idea  of  government 
beyond  the  inauguration  of  the  new  political  system. 

It  is  evident  that  the  failure  of  gentile  institutions  to  meet 
the  now  complicated  wants  of  society  originated  the  movement 
to  withdraw  all  civil  powers  from  the  gentes,  phratries  and 
tribes,  and  re- invest  them  in  new  constituencies.  This  move- 
ment was  gradual,  extending  through  a  long  period  of  time, 
and  was  embodied  in  a  series  of  successive  experiments  by 
means  of  which  a  remedy  was  sought  for  existing  evils.  The 
coming  in  of  the  new  system  was  as  gradual  as  the  going  out  of 


INSTITUTION  OF  GRECIAN  POLITICAL  SOCIETY.  257 

the  old,  the  two  for  a  part  of  the  time  existing  side  by  side.  In 
the  character  and  objects  of  the  experiments  tried  we  may  dis- 
cover wherein  the  gentile  organization  had  failed  to  meet  the 
requirements  of  society,  the  necessity  for  the  subversion  of  the 
gentes,  phratries  and  tribes  as  sources  of  power,  and  the  means 
by  which  it  was  accomplished. 

Looking  backward  upon  the  line  of  human  progress,  it  may 
be  remarked  that  the  stockaded  village  was  the  usual  home  of 
the  tribe  in  the  Lower  Status  of  barbarism.  In  the  Middle 
Status  joint-tenement  houses  of.  adobe-bricks  and  of  stone,  in 
the  nature  of  fortresses,  make  their  appearance.  But  in  the 
Upper  Status,  cities  surrounded  with  ring  embankments,  and 
finally  with  walls  of  dressed  stone,  appear  for  the  first  time  in 
human  experience.  It  was  a  great  step  forward  when  the 
thought  found  expression  in  action  of  surrounding  an  area  am- 
ple for  a  considerable  population  with  a  defensive  wall  of 
dressed  stone,  with  towers,  parapets  and  gates,  designed  to 
protect  all  alike  and  to  be  defended  by  the  common  strength. 
Cities  of  this  grade  imply  the  existence  of  a  stable  and  devel- 
oped field  agriculture,  the  possession  of  domestic  animals  in 
flocks  and  herds,  of  merchandise  in  masses  and  of  property  in 
houses  and  lands.  The  city  brought  with  it  new  demands  in 
the  art  of  government  by  creating  a  changed  condition  of  so- 
ciety. A  necessity  gradually  arose  for  magistrates  and  judges, 
military  and  municipal  officers  of  different  grades,  with  a  mode 
of  raising  and  supporting  military  levies  which  would  require 
public  revenues.  Municipal  life  and  wants  must  have  greatly 
augmented  the  duties  and  responsibilities  of  the  council  of 
chiefs,  and  perhaps  have  overtaxed  its  capacity  to  govern. 

It  has  been  shown  that  in  the  Lower  Status  of  barbarism  the 
government  was  of  one  power,  the  council  of  chiefs;  that  in 
the  Middle  Status  it  was  of  two  powers,  the  council  of  chiefs 
and  the  military  commander;  and  that  in  the  Upper  Status  it 
was  of  three  powers,  the  council  of  chiefs,  the  assembly  of  the 
people  and  the  military  commander.  But  after  the  com- 
mencement of  civilization,  the  differentiation  of  the  powers  of 
the  government  had  proceeded  still  further.  The  military 
power,  first  devolved  upon  the  basileus,  was  now  exercised  by 
17 


258  A  NCI  EN  T  SOCIE  T,  Y. 

generals  and  captains  under  greater  restrictions.  By  a  further 
differentiation  the  judicial  power  had  now  appeared  among  the 
Athenians.  It  was  exercised  by  the  archons  and  dicasts. 
Magisterial  powers  were  now  being  devolved  upon  municipal 
magistrates.  Step  by  step,  and  Avith  the  progress  of  experi- 
ence and  advancement,  these  several  powers  had  been  taken  by 
differentiation  from  the  sum  of  the  powers  of  the  original 
council  of  chiefs,  so  far  as  they  could  be  said  to  have  passed 
from  the  people  into  this  council  as  a  representative  body. 

The  creation  of  these  municipal  offices  was  a  necessary  con- 
sequence of  the  increasing  magnitude  and  complexity  of  their 
affairs.  Under  the  increased  burden  gentile  institutions  were 
breaking  down.  Unnumbered  disorders  existed,  both  from  the 
conflict  of  authority,  and  from  the  abuse  of  powers  not  as  yet 
well  defined.  The  brief  and  masterly  sketch  by  Thucydides 
of  the  condition  of  the  Grecian  tribes  in  the  transitional  period,^ 
and  the  concurrent  testimony  of  other  writers  to  the  same 
effect,  leave  no  doubt  that  the  old  system  of  government  was 
failing,  and  that  a  new  one  had  become  essential  to  further 
progress,  A  wider  distribution  of  the  powers  of  the  govern- 
ment, a  clearer  definition  of  them,  and  a  stricter  accountability 
of  official  persons  were  needed  for  the  welfare  as  well  as  safety 
of  society;  and  more  especially  the  substitution  of  written  laws, 
enacted  by  competent  authority,  in  the  place  of  usages  and 
customs.  It  was  through  the  experimental  knowledge  gained 
in  this  and  the  previous  ethnical  period  that  the  idea  of  polit- 
ical society  or  a  state  was  gradually  forming  in  the  Grecian 
mind.  It  was  a  growth  running  through  centuries  of  time, 
from  the  first  appearance  of  a  necessity  for  a  change  in  the 
plan  of  government,  before  the  entire  result  was  realized. 

The  first  attempt  among  the  Athenians  to  subvert  the  gen- 
tile organization  and  establish  a  new  system  is  ascribed  to 
Theseus,  and  therefore  rests  upon  tradition ;  but  certain  facts 
remained  to  the  historical  period  which  confirm  some  part  at 
least  of  his  supposed  legislation.  It  will  be  sufficient  to  regard 
Theseus  as  representing  a  period,  or  a  series  of  events.  From 
the  time  of  Cecrops  to  Theseus,  according  to  Thucydides,  the 

'  Thucydides,  lib.  i,  2- 1 3. 


INSTITUTION  OF  GRECIAN  POLITICAL  SOCIETY.  259 

Attic  people  had  always  lived  in  cities,  having  their  own  pry- 
taneums  and  archons,  and  when  not  in  fear  of  danger  did  not 
consult  their  basileus,  but  governed  their  own  affairs  separately 
according  to  their  own  councils.  But  when  Theseus  was  made 
basileus,  he  persuaded  them  to  break  up  the  council-houses 
and  magistracies  of  their  several  cities  and  come  into  relation 
with  Athens,  with  one  council-house  {^ovXavrrjpio';),  and  one 
prytaneum  {Ttpuravelov),  to  which  all  were  considered  as  be- 
longing.^ This  statement  embodies  or  implies  a  number  of 
important  facts,  namely ;  that  the  Attic  population  were  or- 
ganized in  independent  tribes,  each  having  its  own  territory 
in  which  the  people  were  localized,  with  its  own  council-house 
and  prytaneum ;  and  that  while  they  were  self-governing 
societies  they  w^ere  probably  confederated  for  mutual  protec- 
tion, and  elected  their  basileus  or  general  to  command  their 
common  forces.  It  is  a  picture  of  communities  democratically 
organized,  needing  a  military  commander  as  a  necessity  of 
their  condition,  but  not  invested  with  civil  functions  which  their 
gentile  system  excluded.  Under  Theseus  they  were  brought 
to  coalesce  into  one  people,  with  Athens  as  their  seat  of  gov- 
ernment, which  gave  them  a  higher  organization  than  before 
they  had  been  able  to  form.  The  coalescence  of  tribes  into  a 
nation  in  one  territory  is  later  in  time  than  confederations, 
where  the  tribes  occupy  independent  territories.  It  is  a  higher 
organic  process.  While  the  gentes  had  always  been  inter- 
mingled by  marriage,  the  tribes  were  now  intermingled  by 
obliterating  territorial  lines,  and  by  the  use  of  a  common 
council-hall  and  prytaneum.  The  act  ascribed  to  Theseus 
explains  the  advancement  of  their  gentile  society  from  a  lower 
to  a  higher  organic  form,  which  must  have  occurred  at  some 
time,  and  probably  was  effected  in  the  manner  stated. 

>  Thucyd.,  lib.  ii,  c.  15.  Plutarch  speaks  nearly  to  the  same  effect:  "He  settled 
all  the  inhabitants  of  Attica  in  Athens,  and  made  them  one  people  in  one  city,  who 
before  were  scattered  up  and  down,  and  could  with  difficulty  be  assembled  on  any 
urgent  occasion  for  the  public  welfare.  .  .  .  Dissolving  therefore  the  associa- 
tions, the  councils,  and  the  courts  in  each  particular  town,  he  built  one  common 
prytaneum  and  court  hall,  where  it  stands  to  this  day.  The  citadel  with  its 
dependencies,  and  the  city  or  the  old  and  new  town,  he  united  under  the  common 
name  of  Athens." — Plutarch,  Vit.  Theseus,  cap.  24. 


260  ANCIENT  SOCIETY. 

But  another  act  is  ascribed  to  Theseus  evincing  a  more 
radical  plan,  as  well  as  an  appreciation  of  the  necessity  for 
a  fundamental  change  in  the  plan  of  government.  He  divided 
the  people  into  three  classes,  irrespective  of  gentes,  called 
respectively  the  Eiipatridce  or  "well-born,"  the  Gcomori  or 
"husbandmen,"  and  the  Dcmiiirgi  or  "artisans."  The  prin- 
cipal offices  were  assigned  to  the  first  class  both  in  the  civil 
administration  and  in  the  priesthood.  This  classification  was 
not  only  a  recognition  of  proj^erty  and  of  the  aristocratic 
element  in  the  government  of  society,  but  it  was  a  direct 
movement  against  the  governing  power  of  the  gentes.  It  was 
the  evident  intention  to  unite  the  chiefs  of  the  gentes  with 
their  families,  and  the  men  of  wealth  in  the  several  gentes,  in 
a  class  by  themselves,  with  the  right  to  hold  the  principal 
offices  in  which  the  powers  of  society  were  vested.  The  sep- 
aration of  the  remainder  into  two  great  classes  traversed  the 
gentes  again.  Important  results  might  have  followed  if  the 
voting  power  had  been  taken  from  the  gentes,  phratries  and 
tribes,  and  given  to  the  classes,  subject  to  the  right  of  the  first 
to  hold  the  principal  offices.  This  does  not  appear  to  have 
been  done,  although  absolutely  necessary  to  give  vitality  to  the 
classes.  Moreover,  it  did  not  change  essentially  the  previous 
order  of  things  with  respect  to  holding  office.  Those  now 
called  Eupatrids  were  probably  the  men  of  the  several  gentes 
who  had  previously  been  called  into  office.  This  scheme 
of  Theseus  died  out,  because  there  was  in  reality  no  transfer 
of  powers  from  the  gentes,  phratries  and  tribes  to  the  classes, 
and  because  such  classes  were  inferior  to  the  gentes  as  the 
basis  of  a  system. 

The  centuries  that  elapsed  from  the  unknown  time  of  The- 
seus to  the  legislation  of  Solon  (594  B.  C.)  formed  one  of  the 
most  important  periods  in  Athenian  experience;  but  the  suc- 
cession of  events  is  imperfectly  known.  The  office  of  basileus 
was  abolished  prior  to  the  first  Olympiad  ijT^  B.  C),  and  the 
archonship  established  in  its  place.  The  latter  seems  to  have 
been  hereditary  in  a  gens,  and  it  is  stated  to  have  been  hered- 
itary in  a  particular  family  within  the  gens,  the  first  twelve  ar- 
chons  being  called  the  Medontidae,   from  Medon,  the  first  ar- 


INSTITUTION  OF  GRECIAN  POLITICAL  SOCIETY.  261 

chon,  claimed  to  have  been  the  son  of  Codrus,  the  last  basileus. 
In  the  case  of  these  archons,  Avho  held  for  life,  the  same  ques- 
tion exists  which  has  elsewhere  been  raised  with  respect  to  the 
basileus;  that  an  election  or  confirmation  by  a  constituency 
was  necessary  before  the  office  could  be  assumed.  The  pre- 
sumption is  against  the  transmission  of  the  office  by  hereditary 
right.  In  71 1  B.  C.  the  office  of  archon  was  limited  to  ten 
years,  and  bestowed  by  free  election  upon  the  person  esteemed 
most  worthy  of  the  position.  We  are  now  within  the  historical 
period,  though  near  its  threshold,  where  we  meet  the  elective 
principle  w'ith  respect  to  the  highest  office  in  the  gift  of  the  peo- 
ple clearly  and  completely  established.  It  is  precisely  what 
would  have  been  expected  from  the  constitution  and  principles 
of  the  gentes,  although  the  aristocratical  principle,  as  we  must 
suppose,  had  increased  in  force  with  the  increase  of  property, 
and  was  the  source  through  which  hereditary  right  was  intro- 
duced wherever  found.  The  existence  of  the  elective  principle 
with  respect  to  the  later  archons  is  not  without  significance  in 
its  relation  to  the  question  of  the  previous  practice  of  the  Athe- 
nians. In  683  B.  C.  the  office  was  made  elective  annually,  the 
number  was  increased  to  nine,  and  their  duties  were  made  min- 
isterial and  judicial.^  We  may  notice,  in  these  events,  evidence 
of  a  gradual  progress  in  knowledge  with  respect  to  the  tenure 
of  office.  The  Athenian  tribes  had  inherited  from  their  remote 
ancestors  the  office  of  archon  ( c\:px6<;)  as  chief  of  the  gens.  It 
was  hereditary  in  the  gens,  as  may  fairly  be  supposed,  and 
elective  among  its  members.  After  descent  was  changed  to 
the  male  line  the  sons  of  the  deceased  chief  were  within  the  line 
of  succession,  and  one  of  their  number  would  be  apt  to  be  chosen 

1  "Of  the  nine  archons,  whose  number  continued  unaltered  from  683  B.  C.  to 
the  end  of  the  democracy,  three  bore  special  titles — the  Archon  Eponymus,  from 
whose  name  the  designation  of  the  year  was  derived,  and  who  was  spoken  of  as 
tAe  Archon,  the  Archon  Basileus  (King),  or  more  frequently,  the  Basileus ;  and  the 
Polemarch.  The  remaining  six  passed  by  the  general  name  of  Thesmothetce.  .  .  . 
The  Archon  Eponymus  determined  all  disputes  relative  to  the  family,  the  gentile, 
and  the  phratric  relations :  he  was  the  legal  protector  of  orphans  and  widows. 
The  Archon  Basileus  (or  King  Archon)  enjoyed  competence  in  complaints  respect- 
ing offenses  against  the  religious  sentiment  and  respecting  homicide.  The  Pole- 
march  (speaking  of  times  anterior  to  Kleisthenes)  was  the  leader  of  military 
force,  and  judge  in  disputes  between  citizens  and  non-citizens." — Grote's  History 
of  Greece,  I.  c,  iii,  74. 


262  ANCIENT  SOCIETY. 

in  the  absence  of  personal  objections.  But  now  they  reverted 
to  this  original  office  for  the  name  of  their  highest  magistrate, 
made  it  elective  irrespective  of  any  gens,  and  limited  its  dura- 
ation,  first  to  ten  years,  and  finally  to  one.  Prior  to  this,  the 
tenure  of  office  to  which  they  had  been  accustomed  was  for 
life.  In  the  Lower  and  also  in  the  Middle  Status  of  barba- 
rism we  have  found  the  office  of  chief,  elective  and  for  life;  or 
during  good  behavior,  for  this  limitation  follows  from  the  right 
of  the  gens  to  depose  from  office.  It  is  a  reasonable  inference 
that  the  office  of  chief  in  a  Grecian  gens  was  held  by  a  free 
election  and  by  the  same  tenure.  It  must  be  regarded  as 
proof  of  a  remarkable  advancement  in  knowledge  at  this  early 
period  that  the  Athenian  tribes  substituted  a  term  of  years  for 
their  most  important  office,  and  allowed  a  competition  of  can- 
didates. They  thus  worked  out  the  entire  theory  of  an  elect- 
ive and  representative  office,  and  placed  it  upon  its  true  basis. 

In  the  time  of  Solon,  it  may  be  further  noticed,  the  Court  of 
Areopagus,  composed  of  ex-archons,  had  come  into  existence 
with  power  to  try  criminals  and  with  a  censorship  over  morals, 
together  with  a  number  of  new  offices  in  the  military,  naval 
and  administrative  services.  But  the  most  important  event 
that  occurred  about  this  time  was  the  institution  of  the  naii- 
a^aries  {vavnpapiai),  twelve  in  each  tribe,  and  forty-eight  in 
all;  each  of  which  was  a  local  circumscription  of  householders 
from  which  levies  were  drawn  into  the  military  and  naval  serv- 
ice, and  from  which  taxes  were  probably  collected.  The 
naucrary  was  the  incipient  deme  or  township  which,  when  the 
idea  of  a  territorial  basis  was  fully  developed,  was  to  become 
the  foundation  of  the  second  great  plan  of  government.  By 
whom  the  naucraries  were  instituted  is  unknown.  "They  must 
have  existed  even  before  the  time  of  Solon,"  Boeckh  remarks, 
"since  the  presiding  officers  of  the  naucraries  {rrpuTareh  raov 
vavupapoDv)  are  mentioned  before  the  time  of  his  legislation; 
and  when  Aristotle  ascribes  their  institution  to  Solon,  we  may 
refer  this  account  only  to  their  confirmation  by  the  political 
constitution  of  Solon." ^  Twelve  naucraries  formed  a  trittys 
{rpirrvz)  a  larger  territorial  circumscription,  but  they  were  not 

>  Public  Economy  of  Athens,  Lamb's  Trans.,  Little  &  Brown's  ed.,  p.  353. 


INSTITUTION  OF  GRECIAN  POLITICAL  SOCIETY.  263 

necessarily  contiguous.      It  was,  in  like  manner,  the  germ  of 
the  county,  the  next  territorial  aggregate  above  the  township. 

Notwithstanding  the  great  changes  that  had  occurred  in  the 
instrumentalities  by  which  the  government  was  administered, 
the  people  were  still  in  a  gentile  society,  and  living  under  gen- 
tile institutions.  The  gens,  phratry  and  tribe  were  in  full  vital- 
ity, and  the  recognized  sources  of  power.  Before  the  time  of 
Solon  no  person  could  become  a  member  of  this  society  except 
through  connection  with  a  gens  and  tribe.  All  other  persons 
were  beyond  the  pale  of  the  government.  The  council  of 
chiefs  remained,  the  old  and  time-honored  instrument  of  gov- 
ernment; but  the  powers  of  the  government  were  now  co- 
ordinated between  itself,  the  agora  or  assembly  of  the  people, 
the  Court  of  Areopagus,  and  the  nine  archons.  It  was  the 
prerogative  of  the  council  to  originate  and  mature  public 
measures  for  submission  to  the  people,  which  enabled  it  to 
shape  the  policy  of  the  government.  It  doubtless  had  the 
general  administration  of  the  finances,  and  it  remained  to  the 
end,  as  it  had  been  from  the  beginning,  the  central  feature  of 
the  government.  The  assembly  of  the  people  had  now  come 
into  increased  prominence.  Its  functions  were  still  limited  to 
the  adoption  or  rejection  of  public  measures  submitted  to  its 
decision  by  the  council;  but  it  began  to  exercise  a  powerful  in- 
fluence upon  public  affairs.  The  rise  of  this  assembly  as  a 
power  in  the  government  is  the  surest  evidence  of  the  progress 
of  the  Athenian  people  in  knowledge  and  intelligence.  Un- 
fortunately the  functions  and  powers  of  the  council  of  chiefs 
and  of  the  assembly  of  the  people  in  this  early  period  have 
been  imperfectly  preserved,  and  but  partially  elucidated. 

In  624  B.  C.  Draco  had  framed  a  body  of  laws  for  the  Athe- 
nians which  were  chiefly  remarkable  for  their  unnecessary  se- 
verity ;  but  this  code  demonstrated  that  the  time  was  drawing 
near  in  Grecian  experience  when  usages  and  customs  were  to 
be  superseded  by  written  laws.  As  yet  the  Athenians  had  not 
learned  the  art  of  enacting  laws  as  the  necessity  for  them  ap- 
peared, which  required  a  higher  knowledge  of  the  functions  of 
legislative  bodies  than  they  had  attained.  They  were  in  that 
stage  in  which  lawgivers  appear,  and  legislation  is  in  a  scheme 


264  ANCIENT  SOCIETY. 

or  In  gross,  under  the  sanction  of  a  personal  name.     Thus  slowly 
the  great  sequences  of  human  progress  unfold  themselves. 

When  Solon  came  into  the  archonship  (594  B.  C.)  the  evils 
prevalent  in  society  had  reached  an  unbearable  degree.  The 
struggle  for  the  possession  of  property,  now  a  commanding  in- 
terest, had  produced  singular  results.  A  portion  of  the  Athe- 
nians had  fallen  into  slavery,  through  debt, — the  person  of  the 
debtor  being  liable  to  enslavement  in  default  of  payment;  oth- 
ers had  mortgaged  their  lands  and  were  unable  to  remove  the 
encumbrances;  and  as  a  consequence  of  these  and  other  em- 
barrassments society  was  devouring  itself  In  addition  to  a 
body  of  laws,  some  of  them  novel,  but  corrective  of  the  princi- 
pal financial  difficulties,  Solon  renewed  the  project  of  Theseus 
of  organizing  society  into  classes,  not  according  to  callings  as 
before,  but  according  to  the  amount  of  their  property.  It  is 
instructive  to  follow  the  course  of  these  experiments  to  super- 
sede the  gentes  and  substitute  a  new  system,  because  we  shall 
find  the  Roman  tribes,  in  the  time  of  Servius  TuUius,  trying 
the  same  experiment  for  the  same  purpose.  Solon  divided  the 
people  into  four  classes  according  to  the  measure  of  their 
wealth,  and  going  beyond  Theseus,  he  invested  these  classes 
with  certain  powers,  and  imposed  upon  them  certain  obliga- 
tions. It  transferred  a  portion  of  the  civil  powers  of  the  gen- 
tes phratries  and  tribes  to  the  property  classes.  In  proportion 
as  the  substance  of  power  was  drawn  from  the  former  and  in- 
vested in  the  latter,  the  gentes  would  be  weakened  and  their 
decadence  would  commence.  But  so  far  as  classes  composed 
of  persons  were  substituted  for  gentes  composed  of  persons, 
the  government  was  still  founded  upon  person,  and  upon  rela- 
tions purely  personal.  The  scheme  failed  to  reach  the  sub- 
stance of  the  question.  Moreover,  in  changing  the  council  of 
chiefs  into  the  senate  of  four  hundred,  the  members  were  taken 
in  equal  numbers  from  the  four  tribes,  and  not  from  the  classes. 
But  it  will  be  noticed  that  the  idea  of  property,  as  the  basis  of 
a  system  of  government,  was  now  incorporated  by  Solon  in 
the  new  plan  of  property  classes.  It  failed,  however,  to  reach 
the  idea  of  political  society,  which  must  rest  upon  territory  as 
well  as  property,  and  deal  with  persons  through  their  territorial 


INSTITUTION  OF  GRECIAN  POLITICAL  SOCIETY.  265 

relations.  The  first  class  alone  were  eligible  to  the  high  offices, 
the  second  performed  military  service  on  horseback,  the  third 
as  infantry,  and  the  fourth  as  light-armed  soldiers.  This  last 
class  were  the  numerical  majority.  They  were  disqualified 
/rom  holding  office,  and  paid  no  taxes;  but  in  the  popular  as- 
sembly of  which  they  were  members,  they  possessed  a  vote 
upon  the  election  of  all  magistrates  and  officers,  with  power  to 
bring  them  to  an  account.  They  also  had  power  to  adopt  or 
reject  all  public  measures  submitted  by  the  senate  to  their  de- 
cision. Under  the  constitution  of  Solon  their  powers  were 
real  and  durable,  and  their  influence  upon  public  affairs  was 
permanent  and  substantial.  All  freemen,  though  not  con- 
nected with  a  gens  and  tribe,  were  now  brought  into  the  gov- 
ernment, to  a  certain  extent,  by  becoming  citizens  and  mem- 
bers of  the  assembly  of  the  people  with  the  powers  named. 
This  was  one  of  the  most  important  results  of  the  legislation  of 
Solon. 

It  will  be  further  noticed  that  the  people  were  now  organized 
as  an  army,  consisting  of  three  divisions;  the  cavalry,  the 
heavy-armed  infantry,  and  the  light-armed  infantry,  each  with 
its  own  officers  of  different  grades.  The  form  of  the  statement 
limits  the  array  to  the  last  three  classes,  which  leaves  the  first 
class  in  the  unpatriotic  position  of  appropriating  to  themselves 
the  principal  offices  of  the  government,  and  taking  no  part  in 
the  military  service.  This  undoubtedly  requires  modification. 
The  same  plan  of  organization,  but  including  the  five  classes, 
will  re-appear  among  the  Romans  under  Servius  Tullius,  by 
whom  the  body  of  the  people  wxre  organized  as  an  army  (ex- 
ercitus)  fully  officered  and  equipped  in  each  subdivision.  The 
idea  of  a  military  democracy,  different  in  organization  but  the 
same  theoretically  as  that  of  the  previous  period,  re- appears  in 
a  new  dress  both  in  the  Solonian  and  in  the  Servian  constitu- 
tion. 

In  addition  to  the  property  element,  which  entered  into  the 
basis  of  the  new  system,  the  territorial  element  was  partially 
incorporated  through  the  naucraries  before  adverted  to,  in 
which  it  is  probable  there  was  an  enrollment  of  citizens  and  of 
their  property  to  form  a  basis  for  mihtary  levies  and  for  taxa- 


266  ANCIENT  SOCIETY. 

tion.  These  provisions,  with  the  senate,  the  popular  assembly 
now  called  the  ecclesia,  the  nine  archons,  and  the  Court  of 
Areopagus,  gave  to  the  Athenians  a  much  more  elaborate  gov- 
ernment than  they  had  before  known,  and  requiring  a  higher 
degree  of  intelligence  for  its  management.  It  was  also  essen-. 
sentially  democratical  in  harmony  with  their  antecedent  ideas 
and  institutions;  in  fact  a  logical  consequence  of  them,  and  ex- 
plainable only  as  such.  But  it  fell  short  of  a  pure  system  in 
three  respects:  firstly,  it  was  not  founded  upon  territory;  sec- 
ondly, all  the  dignities  of  the  state  were  not  open  to  every  cit- 
izen; and  thirdly,  the  principle  of  local  self-government  in  pri- 
mary organizations  was  unknown,  except  as  it  may  have  existed 
imperfectly  in  the  naucraries.  The  gentes,  phratries  and  tribes 
still  remained  in  full  vitality,  but  with  diminished  powers.  It 
was  a  transitional  condition,  requiring  further  experience  to  de- 
velop the  theory  of  a  political  system  toward  which  it  was  a 
great  advance.  Thus  slowly  but  steadily  human  institutions 
are  evolved  from  lower  into  higher  forms,  through  the  logical 
operations  of  the  human  mind  working  in  uniform  but  prede- 
termined channels. 

There  was  one  weighty  reason  for  the  overthrow  of  the  gentes 
and  the  substitution  of  a  new  plan  of  government.  It  was 
probably  recognized  by  Theseus,  and  undoubtedly  by  Solon. 
From  the  disturbed  condition  of  the  Grecian  tribes  and  the  un- 
avoidable movements  of  the  people  in  the  traditionary  period 
and  in  the  times  prior  to  Solon,  many  persons  transferred  them- 
selves from  one  nation  to  another,  and  thus  lost  their  connec- 
tion with  their  own  gens  without  acquiring  a  connection  with 
another.  This  would  repeat  itself  from  time  to  time,  through 
personal  adventure,  the  spirit  of  trade,  and  the  exigencies  of 
warfare,  until  a  considerable  number  with  their  posterity  would 
be  developed  in  every  tribe  unconnected  with  any  gens.  All 
such  persons,  as  before  remarked,  would  be  without  the  pale  of 
the  government  with  which  there  could  be  no  connection  ex- 
cepting through  a  gens  and  tribe.  The  fact  is  noticed  by  Mr. 
Grote.  "The  phratries  and  gentes,"  he  remarks,  "probably 
never  at  any  time  included  the  whole  population  of  the  country 
— and  the  population  not  included  in  them  tended  to  become 


INSTITUTION  OF  GRECIAN  POLITICAL  SOCIETY.  267 

larger  and  larger  in  the  times  anterior  to  Kleisthenes,  as  well  as 
afterwards."^  As  early  as  the  time  of  Lycurgus  there  was  a 
considerable  immigration  into  Greece  from  the  islands  of  the 
Mediterranean,  and  from  the  Ionian  cities  of  its  eastern  coasts, 
which  increased  the  number  of  persons  unattached  to  any  gens. 
When  they  came  in  families  they  would  bring  a  fragment  of  a 
new  gens  with  them;  but  they  would  remain  aliens  unless  the 
new  gens  was  admitted  into  a  tribe.  This  probably  occurred  in 
a  number  of  cases,  and  it  may  assist  in  explaining  the  unusual 
number  of  gentes  in  Greece.  The  gentes  and  phratries  were 
close  corporations,  both  of  which  would  have  been  adulterated 
by  the  absorption  of  these  aliens  through  adoption  into  a  native 
gens.  Persons  of  distinction  might  be  adopted  into  some  gens, 
or  secure  the  admission  of  their  own  gens  into  some  tribe;  but 
the  poorer  class  would  be  refused  either  privilege.  There  can 
be  no  doubt  that  as  far  back  as  the  time  of  Theseus,  and  more 
especially  in  the  time  of  Solon,  the  number  of  the  unattached 
class,  exclusive  of  the  slaves,  had  become  large.  Having  nei- 
ther gens  nor  phratry  they  were  also  without  direct  religious  priv- 
ileges, which  were  inherent  and  exclusive  in  these  organiza- 
tions. It  is  not  difficult  to  see  in  this  class  of  persons  a  grow- 
ing element  of  discontent  dangerous  to  the  security  of  society. 
The  schemes  of  Theseus  and  of  Solon  made  imperfect  pro- 
vision for  their  admission  to  citizenship  through  the  classes; 
but  as  the  gentes  and  phratries  remained  from  which  they  were 
excluded,  the  remedy  was  still  incomplete.  Mr.  Grote  further 
remarks,  that  "  it  is  not  easy  to  make  out  distinctly  what  was 
the  political  position  of  the  ancient  Gentes  and  Phratries,  as 
Solon  left  them.  The  four  tribes  consisted  altogether  of  gentes 
and  phratries,  insomuch  that  no  one  could  be  included  in  any 
one  of  the  tribes  who  was  not  also  a  member  of  some  gens  and 
phratry.  Now  the  new  probouleutic  or  pre-considering  senate 
consisted  of  400  members, — lOO  from  each  of  the  tribes:  per- 
sons not  included  in  any  gens  and  phratry  could  therefore 
have  had  no  access  to  it.  The  conditions  of  eligibility  were 
similar,  according  to  ancient  custom,  for  the  nine  archons — 
of  course,  also,  for  the  senate  of  Areopagus.     So  that  there 

1  History  of  Greece,  iii,  65. 


268  ANCIENT  SOCIETY. 

remained  only  the  public  assembly,  in  which  an  Athenian, 
not  a  member  of  these  tribes,  could  take  part:  yet  he  was  a 
citizen,  since  he  could  give  his  vote  for  archons  and  senators, 
and  could  take  part  in  the  annual  decision  of  their  account- 
ability, besides  being  entitled  to  claim  redress  for  wrong  from 
the  archons  in  his  own  person — while  the  alien  could  only  do  so 
through  the  intervention  of  an  avouching  citizen,  or  Prostates. 
It  seems  therefore  that  all  persons  not  included  in  the  four 
tribes,  whatever  their  grade  or  fortune  might  be,  were  on  the 
same  level  in  respect  to  political  privilege  as  the  fourth  and 
poorest  class  of  the  Solonian  census.  It  has  already  been  re- 
marked, that  even  before  the  time  of  Solon,  the  number  of 
Athenians  not  included  in  the  gentes  or  phratries  was  prob- 
ably considerable :  it  tended  to  become  greater  and  greater,  since 
these  bodies  were  close  and  unexpansive,  while  the  policy  of 
the  new  lawgiver  tended  to  invite  industrious  settlers  from  other 
parts  of  Greece  to  Athens."^  The  Roman  Plebeians  originated 
from  causes  precisely  similar.  They  were  not  members  of  any 
gens,  and  therefore  formed  no  part  of  the  Populus  Romamis. 
We  may  find  in  the  facts  stated  one  of  the  reasons  of  the  fail- 
ure of  the  gentile  organization  to  meet  the  requirements  of  so- 
ciety. In  the  time  of  Solon,  society  had  outgrown  their  ability 
to  govern,  its  affairs  had  advanced  so  far  beyond  the  condition 
in  which  the  gentes  originated.  They  furnished  a  basis  too 
narrow  for  a  state,  up  to  the  measure  of  which  the  people  had 
grown. 

There  was  also  an  increasing  difficulty  in  keeping  the  mem- 
bers of  a  gens,  phratry  and  tribe  locally  together.  As  parts 
of  a  governmental  organic  series,  this  fact  of  localization  was 
highly  necessary.  In  the  earlier  period,  the  gens  held  its  lands 
in  common,  the  phratries  held  certain  lands  in  common  for  re- 
ligious uses,  and  the  tribe  probably  held  other  lands  in  com- 
mon. When  they  established  themselves  in  country  or  city, 
they  settled  locally  together  by  gentes,  by  phratries  and  by 
tribes,  as  a  consequence  of  their  social  organization.  Each  gens 
was  in  the  main  by  itself — not  all  of  its  members,  for  two  gen- 
tes were  represented  in  every  family,  but  the  body  who  propa- 

'  History  of  Greece,  iii,  133. 


INSTITUTION  OF  GRECIAN  POLITICAL  SOCIETY.  269 

gated  the  gens.  Those  gentes  belonging  to  the  same  phratry 
naturally  sought  contiguous  or  at  least  near  areas,  and  the  same 
with  the  several  phratries  of  the  tribe.  But  in  the  time  of  So- 
lon, lands  and  houses  had  come  to  be  owned  by  individuals  in 
severalty,  with  power  of  alienation  as  to  lands,  but  not  of 
houses  out  of  the  gens.  It  doubtless  became  more  and  more 
impossible  to  keep  the  members  of  a  gens  locally  together,  from 
the  shifting  relations  of  persons  to  land,  and  from  the  creation 
of  new  property  by  its  members  in  other  localities.  The  unit 
of  their  social  system  was  becoming  unstable  in  place,  and  also 
in  character.  Without  stopping  to  develop  this  fact  of  their 
condition  further,  it  must  have  proved  one  of  the  reasons  of 
the  failure  of  the  old  plan  of  government.  The  township,  with 
its  fixed  property  and  its  inhabitants  for  the  time  being,  yielded 
that  element  of  permanence  now  wanting  in  the  gens.  Society 
had  made  immense  progress  from  its  former  condition  of  ex- 
treme simplicity.  It  was  very  different  from  that  which  the 
gentile  organization  was  instituted  to  govern.  Nothing  but  the 
unsettled  condition  and  incessant  warfare  of  the  Athenian  tribes, 
from  their  settlement  in  Attica  to  the  time  of  Solon,  could  have 
preserved  this  organization  from  overthrow.  After  their  estab- 
lishment in  walled  cities,  that  rapid  development  of  wealth  and 
numbers  occurred  which  brought  the  gentes  to  the  final  test, 
and  demonstrated  their  inability  to  govern  a  people  now  rap- 
idly approaching  civilization.  But  their  displacement  even  then 
required  a  long  period  of  time. 

The  seriousness  of  the  difficulties  to  be  overcome  in  creating 
a  political  society  are  strikingly  illustrated  in  the  experience  of 
the  Athenians.  In  the  time  of  Solon,  Athens  had  already  pro- 
duced able  men;  the  useful  arts  had  attained  a  very  consider- 
able development;  commerce  on  the  sea  had  become  a  nation- 
al interest;  agriculture  and  manufactures  were  well  advanced; 
and  written  composition  in  verse  had  commenced.  They  were 
in  fact  a  civilized  people,  and  had  been  for  two  centuries;  but 
their  institutions  of  government  were  still  gentile,  and  of  the 
type  prevalent  throughout  the  Later  Period  of  barbarism.  A 
great  impetus  had  been  given  to  the  Athenian  commonwealth 
by  the  new  system  of  Solon;    nevertheless,  nearly  a  century 


270 


ANCIENT  SOCIETY. 


elapsed,  accompanied  with  many  disorders,  before  the  idea  of  a 
state  was  fully  developed  in  the  Athenian  mind.  Out  of  the 
naucrary,  a  conception  of  a  township  as  the  unit  of  a  political 
system  was  finally  elaborated;  but  it  required  a  man  of  the 
highest  genius,  as  well  as  great  personal  influence,  to  seize  the 
idea  in  its  fullness,  and  give  it  an  organic  embodiment.  That 
man  finally  appeared  in  Cleisthenes  (509  B.  C),  who  must  be 
regarded  as  the  first  of  Athenian  legislators — the  founder  of 
the  second  great  plan  of  human  government,  that  under  which 
modern  civilized  nations  are  organized. 

Cleisthenes  went  to  the  bottom  of  the  question,  and  placed 
the  Athenian  political  system  upon  the  foundation  on  which  it 
remained  to  the  close  of  the  independent  existence  of  the  com- 
monwealth. He  divided  Attica  into  a  hundred  demes,  or 
townships,  each  circumscribed  by  metes  and  bounds,  and  dis- 
tinguished by  a  name.  Every  citizen  was  required  to  register 
himself,  and  to  cause  an  enrollment  of  his  property  in  the 
deme  in  which  he  resided.  This  enrollment  was  the  evidence 
as  well  as  the  foundation  of  his  civil  privileges.  The  deme 
displaced  the  naucrary.  Its  inhabitants  were  an  organized 
body  politic  with  powers  of  local  self-government,  like  the 
modern  American  township.  This  is  the  vital  and  the  re- 
markable feature  of  the  system.  It  reveals  at  once  its  demo- 
cratic character.  The  government  was  placed  in  the  hands  of 
the  people  in  the  first  of  the  series  of  territorial  organizations. 
The  demotse  elected  a  demarch  (cj^/yuo'pjo?),  who  had  the  cus- 
tody of  the  public  register;  he  had  also  power  to  convene  the" 
demotae  for  the  purpose  of  electing  magistrates  and  judges,  for 
revising  the  registry  of  citizens,  and  for  the  enrollment  of  such 
as  became  of  age  during  the  year.  They  elected  a  treasurer, 
and  provided  for  the  assessment  and  collection  of  taxes,  and 
for  furnishing  the  quota  of  troops  required  of  the  deme  for  the 
service  of  the  state.  They  also  elected  thirty  dicasts  or  judges, 
who  tried  all  causes  arising  in  the  deme  where  the  amount  in- 
volved fell  below  a  certain  sum.  Besides  these  powers  of  local 
self-government,  which  is  the  essence  of  a  democratic  system, 
each  deme  had  its  own  temple  and  religious  worship,  and  its 
own  priest,  also  elected  by  the  demotae.     Omitting  minor  par- 


INSTITUTION  OF  GRECIAN  POLITICAL  SOCIETY.  271 

ticulars,  we  find  the  instructive  and  remarkable  fact  that  the 
township,  as  first  instituted,  possessed  all  the  powers  of  local 
self-government,  and  even  upon  a  fuller  and  larger  scale  than 
an  American  township.  Freedom  in  religion  is  also  noticeable, 
which  was  placed  where  it  rightfully  belongs,  under  the  control 
of  the  people.  All  registered  citizens  were  free,  and  equal  in 
their  rights  and  privileges,  with  the  exception  of  equal  eligibility 
to  the  higher  offices.  Such  was  the  new  unit  of  organization 
in  Athenian  political  society,  at  once  a  model  for  a  free  state, 
and  a  marvel  of  wisdom  and  knowledge.  The  Athenians 
commenced  with  a  democratic  organization  at  the  point  where 
every  people  must  commence  who  desire  to  create  a  free  state, 
and  place  the  control  of  the  government  in  the  hands  of  its 
citizens. 

The  second  member  of  the  organic  territorial  series  consisted 
of  ten  demes,  united  in  a  larger  geographical  district.  It  was 
called  a  local  tribe  i^qjvXov  roTrixor),  to  preserve  some  part  of 
the  terminology  of  the  old  gentile  system.^  Each  district  was 
named  after  an  Attic  hero,  and  it  was  the  analogue  of  the  mod- 
ern county.  The  demes  in  each  district  were  usually  contigu- 
ous, which  should  have  been  true  in  every  instance  to  render 
the  analogy  complete-;  but  in  a  few  cases  one  or  more  of  the 
ten  were  detached,  probably  in  consequence  of  the  local  sepa- 
ration of  portions  of  the  original  consanguine  tribe  who  de- 
sired to  have  their  deme  incorporated  in  the  district  of  their 
immediate  kinsmen.  The  inhabitants  of  each  district  or  coun- 
ty were  also  a  body  politic,  with  certain  powers  of  local  self- 
government.  They  elected  a  phylarch  (qtvXapxo?),  who  com- 
manded the  cavalry;  a  taxiarch  {raSi'apxo?),  who  commanded 
the  foot-soldiers,  and  a  general  {ffTpaTj/yo?),  who  commanded 
both;  and  as  each  district  was  required  to  furnish  five  triremes, 
they  probably  elected  as  many  trierarchs  (Tphjpapxo?)  to 
command  them.      Cleisthenes  increased  the  senate  to  five  hun- 

'  The  Latin  tridus=trihs,  signified  originally  "a  third  part,"  and  was  used  to 
designate  a  third  part  of  the  people  when  composed  of  three  tribes  ;  but  in  course 
of  time,  after  the  Latin  tribes  were  made  local  instead  of  consanguine,  like  the 
Athenian  local  tribes,  the  term  tribe  lost  its  numerical  quality,  and  came,  like  the 
phylon  of  Cleisthenes  to  be  a  local  designation. —  Fide  Mommsen's  Hist,  of  Rome, 
I.  c,  i,  71. 


272  ANCIENT  SOCIETY. 

dred,  and  assigned  fifty  to  each  district.  They  were  elected  by 
its  inhabitants.  Other  functions  of  this  larger  body  politic 
doubtless  existed,  but  they  have  been  imperfectly  explained. 

The  third  and  last  member  of  the  territorial  series  was  the 
Athenian  commonwealth  or  state,  consisting  of  ten  local  tribes 
or  districts.  It  was  an  organized  body  politic,  embracing  the 
aggregate  of  Athenian  citizens.  It  was  represented  by  a  sen- 
ate, an  ecclesia,  the  court  of  Areopagus,  the  archons,  and 
judges,  and  the  body  of  elected  military  and  naval  com- 
manders. 

Thus  the  Athenians  founded  the  second  great  plan  of  gov- 
ernment upon  territory  and  upon  property.  They  substituted 
a  series  of  territorial  aggregates  in  the  place  of  an  ascending 
series  of  aggregates  of  persons.  As  a  plan  of  government  it 
rested  upon  territory  which  was  necessarily  permanent,  and 
upon  property  which  was  more  or  less  localized;  and  it  dealt 
with  its  citizens,  now  localized  in  denies  through  their  territo- 
rial relations.  To  be  a  citizen  of  the  state  it  was  necessary  to 
be  a  citizen  of  a  deme.  The  person  voted  and  was  taxed  in 
his  deme,  and  he  was  called  into  the  military  service  from  his 
deme.  In  like  manner  he  was  called  by  election  into  the  sen- 
ate, and  to  the  command  of  a  division  of  the  army  or  navy 
from  the  larger  district  of  his  local  tribe.  His  relations  to  a 
gens  or  phratry  ceased  to  govern  his  duties  as  a  citizen.  The 
contrast  between  the  two  systems  is  as  marked  as  their  differ- 
ence was  fundamental.  A  coalescence  of  the  people  into 
bodies  politic  in  territorial  areas  now  became  complete. 

The  territorial  series  enters  into  the  plan  of  government  of 
modern  civilized  nations.  Among  ourselves,  for  example,  we 
have  the  township,  the  county,  the  state,  and  the  United  States; 
the  inhabitants  of  each  of  whiqh  are  an  organized  body  politic 
with  powers  of  local  self-government.  Each  organization  is  in 
full  vitality  and  performs  its  functions  within  a  definite  sphere 
in  which  it  is  supreme.  France  has  a  similar  series  in  the  com- 
mune, the  arrondissement,  the  department,  and  the  empire,  now 
the  republic.  In  Great  l^ritain  the  series  is  the  parish,  the 
shire,  the  kingdom,  and  the  three  kingdoms.  In  the  Saxon  pe- 
riod the  hundred  seems  to  have  been  the  analogue  of  the  town- 


INSTITUTION  OF  GRECIAN  POLITICAL  SOCIETY.  273 

ship;^  but  already  emasculated  of  the  powers  of  local  self-gov- 
ernment, with  the  exception  of  the  hundred  court.  The  in- 
habitants of  these  several  areas  were  organized  as  bodies  poli- 
tic, but  those  below  the  highest  Avith  very  limited  powers. 
The  tendency  to  centralization  under  monarchical  institutions 
has  atrophied,  practically,  all  the  lower  organizations. 

As  a  consequence  of  the  legislation  of  Cleisthenes,  the  gen- 
tes  phratries  and  tribes  were  divested  of  their  influence,  be- 
cause their  powers  were  taken  from  them  and  vested  in  the 
deme,  the  local  tribe  and  the  state,  which  became  from  thence- 
forth the  sources  of  all  political  power.  They  were  not  dis- 
solved, however,  even  after  this  overthrow,  but  remained  for 
centuries  as  a  pedigree  and  lineage,  and  as  fountains  of  relig- 
ious life.  In  certain  orations  of  Demosthenes,  where  the  cases 
involved  personal  or  property  rights,  descents  or  rights  of  sep- 
ulture, both  the  gens  and  phratry  appear  as  living  organizations 
in  his  time.^  They  were  left  undisturbed  by  the  new  system 
so  far  as  their  connection  with  religious  rites,  w^ith  certain  crim- 
inal proceedings,  and  with  certain  social  practices  were  con- 
cerned, which  arrested  their  total  dissolution.  The  classes, 
however,  both  those  instituted  by  Theseus  and  those  afterwards 
created  by  Solon,  disappeared  after  the  time  of  Cleisthenes.^ 

Solon  is  usually  regarded  as  the  founder  of  Athenian  democ- 
racy, while  some  writers  attribute  a  portion  of  the  w'ork  to  Cleis- 
thenes and  Theseus.  We  shall  draw  nearer  the  truth  of  the 
matter  by  regarding  Theseus,  Solon  and  Cleisthenes  as  standing 
connected  with  three  great  movements  of  the  Athenian  people, 
not  to  found  a  democracy,  for  Athenian  democracy  was  older 
than  either,  but  to  change  the  plan  of  government  from  a  gentile 
into  a  political  organization.  Neither  sought  to  change  the  ex- 
isting principles  of  democracy  which  had  been  inherited  from 
the  gentes.  They  contributed  in  their  respective  times  to  the 
great  movement  for  the  formation  of  a  state,  which  required  the 
substitution  of  a  political  in  the  place  of  gentile  society.  The 
invention  of  a  township,  and  the  organization  of  its  inhabitants 

*  Anglo  Saxon  Lata,  by  Henry  Adams  and  others,  pp.  20,  23. 

*  See  particularly  the  Orations  against  Eubulides,  and  Marcatus. 
3  Hermann's  Political  Antiqiiilies  of  Greece,  I.  c,  p.  187,  s.  96. 
18 


274 


ANCIENT  SOCIETY. 


as  a  body  politic,  was  the  main  feature  in  the  problem.  It  may 
seem  to  us  a  simple  matter;  but  it  taxed  the  capacities  of  the 
Athenians  to  their  lowest  depths  before  the  idea  of  a  township 
found  expression  in  its  actual  creation.  It  was  an  inspiration 
of  the  genius  of  Cleisthenes;  and  it  stands  as  the  master  work 
of  a  master  mind.  In  the  new  political  society  they  realized 
that  complete  democracy  which  already  existed  in  every  essen- 
tial principle,  but  which  required  a  change  in  the  plan  of  gov- 
ernment to  give  it  a  more  ample  field  and  a  fuller  expression. 
It  is  precisely  here,  as  it  seems  to  the  writer,  that  we  have  been 
misled  by  the  erroneous  assumption  of  the  great  historian,  Mr. 
Grote,  whose  general  views  of  Grecian  institutions  are  so  sound 
and  perspicuous,  namely,  that  the  early  governments  of  the 
Grecian  tribes  were  essentially  monareJiieal}  On  this  assump- 
tion it  requires  a  revolution  of  institutions  to  explain  the  exist- 
ence of  that  Athenian  democracy  under  which  the  great  men- 
tal achievements  of  the  Athenians  were  made.  No  such  rev- 
olution occurred,  and  no  radical  change  of  institutions  was  ever 
effected,  for  the  reason  that  they  were  and  always  had  been 
essentially  democratical.  Usurpations  not  unlikely  occurred, 
followed  by  controversies  for  the  restoration  of  the  previous  or- 
der; but  they  never  lost  their  liberties,  or  those  ideas  of  free- 
dom and  of  the  right  of  self-government  which  had  been  their 
inheritance  in  all  ages. 

Recurring  for  a  moment  to  the  basileus,  the  office  tended  to 
make  the  man  more  conspicuous  than  any  other  in  their  affairs. 
He  was  the  first  person  to  catch  the  mental  eye  of  the  histo- 
rian by  whom  he  has  been  metamorphosed  into  a  king,  notwith- 
standing he  was  made  to  reign,  and  by  divine  right,  over  a  rude 
democracy.  As  a  general  in  a  military  democracy,  the  basileus 
becomes  intelligible,  and  without  violating  the  institutions  that 
actually  existed.  The  introduction  of  this  office  did  not  change 
the  principles  of  the  gentes,  phratries  and  tribes,  which  in  their 
organization  were  essentially  democratical,  and  which  of  neces- 
sity impressed  that  character  on  their  gentile  system.  Evi- 
dence is  not  wanting  that  the  popular  element  was  constantly 

1  "The  primitive  Grecian  government  is  essentially  monarchical,  reposing  on 
personal  feeling  and  divine  right." — History  of  Greece,  ii,  69. 


INSTITUTION  OF  GRECIAN  POLITICAL  SOCIETY.  275 

active  to  resist  encroachments  on  personal  rights.  The  basileus 
belongs  to  the  traditionary  period,  when  the  powers  of  govern- 
ment were  more  or  less  undefined;  but  the  council  of  chiefs  ex- 
isted in  the  centre  of  the  system,  and  also  the  gentes,  phratries 
and  tribes  in  full  vitality.  These  are  sufficient  to  determine  the 
character  of  the  government.^ 

The  government  as  reconstituted  by  Cleisthenes  contrasted 
strongly  \\\\\\  that  previous  to  the  time  of  Solon.  But  the 
transition  was  not  only  natural  but  inevitable  if  the  people  fol- 
lowed their  ideas  to  their  logical  results.  It  was  a  change  of 
plan,  but  not  of  principles  nor  even  of  instrumentalities.  The 
council  of  chiefs  remained  in  the  senate,  the  agora  in  the  ec- 
clesia;  the  three  highest  archons  were  respectively  ministers  of 
state,  of  religion,  and  of  justice  as  before,  while  the  six  inferior 
archons  exercised  judicial  functions  in  connection  with  the 
courts,  and  the  large  body  of  dicasts  now  elected  annually  for 
judicial  service.  No  executive  officer  existed  under  the  sys- 
tem, which  is  one  of  its  striking  peculiarities.  The  nearest  ap- 
proach to  it  was  the  president  of  the  senate,  who  was  elected 
by  lot  for  a  single  day,  without  the  possibility  of  a  re-election 
during  the  year.  For  a  single  day  he  presided  over  the  popu- 
lar assembly,  and  held  the  keys  of  the  citadel  and  of  the  treas- 
ury. Under  the  new  government  the  popular  assembly  held 
the  substance  of  power,  and  guided  the  destiny  of  Athens. 
The  new  element  which  gave  stability  and  order  to  the  state 
was  the  deme  or  township,  with  its  complete  autonomy,  and 
local  self-government.  A  hundred  demes  similarly  organized 
would  determine  the  general  movement  of  the  commonwealth. 
As  the  unit,  so  the  compound.  It  is  here  that  the  people,  as 
before  remarked,  must  begin  if  they  would  learn  the  art  of 
self-government,  and  maintain  equal  laws,  and  equal  rights  and 
privileges.     They  must  retain  in  their  hands  all  the  powers  of 

*  Sparta  retained  the  office  of  basileus  in  tlie  period  of  civilization.  It  was 
a  dual  generalship,  and  hereditary  in  a  particular  family.  The  powers  of  govern- 
ment were  co-ordinated  between  the  Gerousia  or  council,  the  popular  assembly, 
the  five  ephors,  and  two  military  commanders.  The  ephors  were  elected  annuallv, 
with  powers  analogous  to  the  Roman  tribunes.  Royalty  at  Sparta  needs  qualifica- 
tion. The  basileis  commanded  the  army,  and  in  their  capacity  of  chief  priests 
offered  the  sacrifices  to  the  gods. 


276 


ANCIENT  SOCIETY. 


society  not  necessary  to  the  state  to  insure  an  efficient  general 
administration,  as  well  as  the  control  of  the  administration 
itself. 

Athens  rose  rapidly  into  influence  and  distinction  under  the 
new  political  system.  That  remarkable  development  of  genius 
and  intelligence,  which  raised  the  Athenians  to  the  highest  em- 
inence among  the  historical  nations  of  mankind,  occurred  under 
the  inspiration  of  democratic  institutions. 

With  the  institution  of  political  society  under  Cleisthenes,  the 
gentile  organization  was  laid  aside  as  a  portion  of  the  rags  of 
barbarism.  Their  ancestors  had  lived  for  untold  centuries  in 
gentilism,  with  which  they  had  achieved  all  the  elements  of 
civilization,  including  a  written  language,  as  well  as  entered 
upon  a  civilized  career.  The  history  of  the  gentile  organiza- 
tion will  remain  as  a  perpetual  monument  of  the  anterior  ages, 
identified  as  it  has  been  with  the  most  remarkable  and  extend- 
ed experience  of  mankind.  It  must  ever  be  ranked  as  one  of 
the  most  remarkable  institutions  of  the  human  family. 

In  this  brief  and  inadequate  review  the  discussion  has  been 
confined  to  the  main  course  of  events  in  Athenian  history. 
Whatever  was  true  of  the  Athenian  tribes  will  be  found  sub- 
stantially true  of  the  remaining  Grecian  tribes,  though  not  ex- 
hibited on  so  broad  or  so  grand  a  scale.  The  discussion  tends 
to  render  still  more  apparent  one  of  the  main  propositions  ad- 
vanced— that  the  idea  of  government  in  all  the  tribes  of  man- 
kind has  been  a  growth  through  successive  stages  of  develop- 
ment. 


CHAPTER  XL 

THE   ROMAN   GENS. 

Italian  Tribes  Organized  in  Gentes. — Founding  of  Rome. — Tribes  Or- 
ganized INTO  A  Military  Democracy.— The  Roman  Gens. — Definition  of 
A  Gentilis  by  Cicero. — By  Festus. — By  Varro. — Descent  in  Male  Line. — 
Marrying  out  of  the  Gens. — Rights  and  Obligations  of  the  Members  of 
A  Gens. — Democratic  Constitution  of  Ancient  Latin  Society. — Number 
of  Persons  in  a  Gens. 

When  the  Latins,  and  their  congeners  the  SabelHans,  the 
Oscans  and  the  Umbrians,  entered  the  ItaHan  peninsula  proba- 
bly as  one  people,  they  were  in  possession  of  domestic  animals, 
and  probably  cultivated  cereals  and  plants.^     At  the  least  they 

'  "During  the  period  when  the  Indo-Germanic  nations  which  are  now  sep- 
arated still  formed  one  stock  speaking  the  same  language,  they  attained  a  certain 
stage  of  culture,  and  they  had  a  vocabulary  corresponding  to  it.  This  vocabulary 
the  several  nations  carried  along  with  them,  in  its  conventionally  established  use, 
as  a  common  dowry  and  a  foundation  for  further  structures  of  their  own.  ...  In 
this  way  we  possess  evidence  of  the  development  of  pastoral  life  at  that  remote 
epoch  in  the  unalterably  fixed  names  of  domestic  animals ;  the  Sanskrit  gdus  is  the 
Latin  bos-,  the  Greek  fiovi  ;  Sanskrit  avis,  is  the  Latin  ovis,  the  Greek  o'i'i ;  San- 
skrit agvas,  Latin  equus,  Greek  iTdtoZ;  Sanskrit  hansas,  Latin  anser,  Greek  XV"^ 't 
...  on  the  other  hand,  we  have  as  yet  no  certain  proofs  of  the  existence  of  agricult- 
ure at  this  period.  Language  rather  favors  the  negative  view." — Mommsen's  His- 
tory of  Rome,  Dickson's  Trans.,  Scribner's  ed.,  1871,  i,  37.  In  a  note  he  remarks 
that  "barley,  wheat,  and  spelt  were  found  growing  together  in  a  wild  state  on  the 
right  bank  of  the  Euphrates,  northwest  from  Anah.  The  growth  of  barley  and 
wheat  in  a  wild  state  in  Mesopotamia  had  already  been  mentioned  by  the  Babylonian 
historian,  Berosus." 

Fick  remarks  upon  the  same  subject  as  follows:  "While  pasturage  evidently 
formed  the  foundation  of  primitive  social  life  we  can  find  in  it  but  very  slight 
beginnings  of  agriculture.  They  were  acquainted  to  be  sure  with  a  few  of  the 
grains,  but  the  cultivation  of  these  was  carried  on  very  incidentally  in  order  to 


278  ANCIENT  SOCIETY. 

were  well  advanced  in  the  Middle  Status  of  barbarism ;  and 
when  they  first  came  under  historical  notice  they  were  in  the 
Upper  Status,  and  near  the  threshold  of  civilization. 

The  traditionary  history  of  the  Latin  tribes,  prior  to  the 
time  of  Romulus,  is  much  more  scanty  and  imperfect  than  that 
of  the  Grecian,  whose  earlier  relative  literary  culture  and  strong- 
er literary  proclivities  enabled  them  to  preserve  a  larger  pro- 
portion of  their  traditionary  accounts.  Concerning  their  an- 
terior experience,  tradition  did  not  reach  beyond  their  previous 
life  on  the  Alban  hills,  and  the  ranges  of  the  Appenines  east- 
ward from  the  site  of  Rome.  For  tribes  so  far  advanced  in 
the  arts  of  life  it  would  have  required  a  long  occupation  of 
Italy  to  efface  all  knowledge  of  the  country  from  which  they 
came.  In  the  time  of  Romulus^  they  had  already  fallen  by 
segmentation  into  thirty  independent  tribes,  still  united  in  a 
loose  confederacy  for  mutual  protection.  They  also  occupied 
contiguous  territorial  areas.  The  Sabellians,  Oscans,  and 
Umbrians  were  in  the  same  general  condition;  their  respective 
tribes  were  in  the  same  relations;  and  their  territorial  circum- 
scriptions, as  might  have  been  expected,  were  founded  upon 
dialect.  All  alike,  including  their  northern  neighbors  the 
Etruscans,  were  organized  in  gentes,  with  institutions  similar 
to  those  of  the  Grecian  tribes.  Such  was  their  general  con- 
dition when  they  first  emerged  from  behind  the  dark  curtain  of 
their  previous  obscurity,  and  the  light  of  history  fell  upon 
them. 

Roman  history  has  touched  but  slightly  the  particulars  of  a 
vast  experience  anterior  to  the  founding  of  Rome  (about  753 

gain  a  supply  of  milk  and  flesh.  The  material  existence  of  the  people  rested 
ill  no  way  upon  agriculture.  This  becomes  entirely  clear  from  the  small  number 
of  primitive  words  which  have  reference  to  agriculture.  These  words  are  yava, 
wild  fruit,  varka,  hoe,  or  plow,  rava,  sickle,  together  with  pio,  piiisere  [to  bake] 
and  mak,  Gk.  /udddoo,  which  give  indications  of  threshing  out  and  grinding 
of  grain." — Kick's  Primitive  Unity  of  Indo-European  Languages,  Gottingen, 
1873,  p.  280.     See  also  Chips  From  a  German  Workshop,  ii,  42. 

With  reference  to  the  possession  of  agriculture  by  the  Graeco-Italic  people,  see 
Mommsen,  i,  p.  47,  ct  scq. 

>  The  use  of  the  word  Romulus,  and  of  the  names  of  his  successors,  does  not 
involve  the  adoption  of  the  ancient  Roman  traditions.  These  names  personify  the 
great  movements  which  then  took  place  with  which  we  are  chiefly  concerned. 


THE  ROMAN  GENS.  279 

B.  C).  The  Italian  tribes  had  then  become  numerous  and 
populous;  they  had  become  strictly  agricultural  in  their  habits,' 
possessed  flocks  and  herds  of  domestic  animals,  and  had  made 
great  progress  in  the  arts  of  life.  They  had  also  attained  the 
monogamian  family.  All  this  is  shown  by  their  condition 
when  first  made  known  to  us;  but  the  particulars  of  their  prog- 
ress from  a  lower  to  a  higher  state  had,  in  the  main,  fallen  out 
of  knowledge.  They  were  back\^•ard  in  the  growth  of  the 
idea  of  government;  since  the  confederacy  of  tribes  was  still 
the  full  extent  of  their  advancement.  Although  the  thirty 
tribes  were  confederated,  it  was  in  the  nature  of  a  league  for 
mutual  defense,  and  neither  sufficiently  close  or  intimate  to 
tend  to  a  nationality. 

The  Etruscan  tribes  were  confederated;  and  the  same  was 
probably  true  of  the  Sabellian,  Oscan  and  Umbrian  tribes. 
While  the  Latin  tribes  possessed  numerous  fortified  towns  and 
country  strongholds,  they  were  spread  over  the  surface  of  the 
country  for  agricultural  pursuits,  and  for  the  maintenance  of 
their  flocks  and  herds.  Concentration  and  coalescence  had 
not  occurred  to  any  marked  extent  until  the  great  move- 
ment ascribed  to  Romulus  which  resulted  in  the  foundation 
of  Rome.  These  loosely  united  Latin  tribes  furnished  the 
principal  materials  from  which  the  new  city  was  to  draw  its 
strength.  The  accounts  of  these  tribes  from  the  time  of  the 
supremacy  of  the  chiefs  of  Alba  down  to  the  time  of  Servius 
Tullius,  were  made  up  to  a  great  extent  of  fables  and  traditions; 
but  certain  facts  remained  in  the  institutions  and  social  usages 
transmitted  to  the  historical  period  which  tend,  in  a  remarkable 
manner,  to  illustrate  their  previous  condition.  They  are  even 
more  important  than  an  outline  history  of  actual  events. 

Among  the  institutions  of  the  Latin  tribes  existing  at  the 
commencement  of  the  historical  period  were  the  gentes,  curiae 
and  tribes  upon  which  Romulus  and  his  successors  established 
the  Roman  power.  The  new  government  was  not  in  all  re- 
spects a  natural  growth;  but  modified  in  the  upper  members 
of  the  organic  series  by  legislative  procurement.  The  gentes, 
however,  which  formed  the  basis  of  the  organization,  were  nat- 
ural growths,  and  in  the  main  either  of  common  or  cognate  lin- 


28o  ANCIENT  SOCIETY. 

eage.  That  is,  the  Lathi  gentes  were  of  the  same  Hneage,  while 
the  Sabine  and  other  gentes,  with  the  exception  of  the  Etrus- 
cans, were  of  cognate  descent.  In  the  time  of  Tarquinius  Pris- 
cus,  the  fourth  in  succession  from  Romulus,  the  organization 
had  been  brought  to  a  numerical  scale,  namely:  ten  gentes  to 
a  curia,  ten  curiae  to  a  tribe,  and  three  tribes  of  the  Romans; 
giving  a  total  of  three  hundred  gentes  integrated  in  one  gentile 
society. 

Romulus  had  the  sagacity  to  perceive  that  a  confederacy  of 
tribes,  composed  of  gentes  and  occupying  separate  areas,  had 
neither  the  unity  of  purpose  nor  sufficient  strength  to  accom- 
plish more  than  the  maintenance  of  an  independent  existence. 
The  tendency  to  disintegration  counteracted  the  advantages  of 
the  federal  principle.  Concentration  and  coalescence  were  the 
remedy  proposed  by  Romulus  and  the  wise  men  of  his  time. 
It  was  a  remarkable  movement  for  the  period,  and  still  more 
remarkable  in  its  progress  from  the  epoch  of  Romulus  to  the 
institution  of  political  society  under  Servius  Tullius.  Follow- 
ing the  course  of  the  Athenian  tribes  and  concentrating  in  one 
city,  they  wrought  out  in  five  generations  a  similar  and  com- 
plete change  in  the  plan  of  government,  from  a  gentile  into  a 
political  organization. 

It  will  be  sufficient  to  remind  the  reader  of  the  general  facts 
that  Romulus  united  upon  and  around  the  Palatine  Hill  a  hun- 
dred Latin  gentes,  organized  as  a  tribe,  the  Ramnes ;  that  by  a 
fortunate  concurrence  of  circumstances  a  large  body  of  Sabines 
were  added  to  the  new  community  whose  gentes,  afterwards  in- 
creased to  one  hundred,  were  organized  as  a  second  tribe,  the 
Titles;  and  that  in  the  time  of  Tarquinius  Priscus  a  third  tribe, 
the  Luceres,  had  been  formed,  composed  of  a  hundred  gentes 
drawn  from  surrounding  tribes,  including  the  Etruscans.  Three 
hundred  gentes,  in  about  the  space  of  a  hundred  years,  were 
thus  gathered  at  Rome,  and  completely  organized  under  a  coun- 
cil of  chiefs  now  called  the  Roman  Senate,  an  assembly  of  the 
people  now  called  the  coniitia  curiata,  and  one  military  com- 
mander, the  rex ;  and  with  one  purpose,  that  of  gaining  a  mil- 
itary ascendency  in  Italy. 

Under  the  constitution  of  Romulus,  and  the  subsequent  leg- 


THE  ROMAN  GENS.  2  8 1 

islation  of  Servius  Tullius,  the  government  was  essentially  a  mil- 
itary democracy,  because  the  military  spirit  predominated  in 
the  government.  But  it  may  be  remarked  in  passing  that  a 
new  and  antagonistic  element,  the  Roman  senate,  was  now  in- 
corporated in  the  centre  of  the  social  system,  which  conferred 
patrician  rank  upon  its  members  and  their  posterity.  A  priv- 
ileged class  was  thus  created  at  a  stroke,  and  intrenched  first 
in  the  gentile  and  afterwards  in  the  political  system,  which  ul- 
timately overthrew  the  democratic  principles  inherited  from  the 
gentes.  It  was  the  Roman  senate,  with  the  patrician  class  it 
created,  that  changed  the  institutions  and  the  destiny  of  the 
Roman  people,  and  turned  them  from  a  career,  analogous  to 
that  of  the  Athenians,  to  which  their  inherited  principles  nat- 
urally and  logically  tended. 

In  its  main  features  the  new  organization  was  a  masterpiece 
of  wisdom  for  military  purposes.  It  soon  carried  them  entirely 
beyond  the  remaining  Italian  tribes,  and  ultimately  into  suprem- 
acy over  the  entire  peninsula. 

The  organization  of  the  Latin  and  other  Italian  tribes  into 
gentes  has  been  investigated  by  Niebuhr,  Hermann,  Mommsen, 
Long  and  others;  but  their  several  accounts  fall  short  of  a  clear 
and  complete  exposition  of  the  structure  and  principles  of  the 
Italian  gens.  This  is  due  in  part  to  the  obscurity  in  which 
portions  of  the  subject  are  enveloped,  and  to  the  absence  of 
minute  details  in  the  Latin  writers.  It  is  also  in  part  due  to  a 
misconception,  by  some  of  the  first  named  writers,  of  the  rela- 
tions of  the  family  to  the  gens.  They  regard  the  gens  as  com- 
posed of  families,  whereas  it  was  composed  of  parts  of  families; 
so  that  the  gens  and  not  the  family  was  the  unit  of  the  social 
system.  It  may  be  difficult  to  carry  the  investigation  much 
beyond  the  point  where  they  have  left  it;  but  information 
drawn  from  the  archaic  constitution  of  the  gens  may  serve  to 
elucidate  some  of  its  characteristics  which  are  now  obscure. 

Concerning  the  prevalence  of  the  organization  into  gentes 
among  the  Italian  tribes,  Niebuhr  remarks  as  follows:  "Should 
any  one  still  contend  that  no  conclusion  is  to  be  drawn  from 
the  character  of  the  Athenian  gennetes  to  that  of  the  Roman 
gentiles,  he  will  be  bound  to  show  how  an  institution  which 


282  ANCIENT  SOCIETY. 

runs  through  the  whole  ancient  world  came  to  have  a  com- 
pletely dififerent  character  in  Italy  and  in  Greece.  .  .  .  Every 
body  of  citizens  was  divided  in  this  manner;  the  Gephyrseans 
and  Salaminians  as  well  as  the  Athenians,  the  Tusculans  as 
well  as  the  Romans."^ 

Besides  the  existence  of  the  Roman  gens,  it  is  desirable  to 
know  the  nature  of  the  organization;  its  rights,  privileges  and 
obligations,  and  the  relations  of  the  gentes  to  each  other,  as 
members  of  a  social  system.  After  these  have  been  consid- 
ered, their  relations  to  the  curiae,  tribes,  and  resulting  people 
of  which  they  for^med  a  part,  will  remain  for  consideration  in 
the  next  ensuing  chapter. 

After  collecting  the  accessible  information  from  various 
sources  upon  these  subjects  it  will  be  found  incomplete  in  many 
respects,  leaving  some  of  the  attributes  and  functions  of  the 
gens  a  matter  of  inference.  The  powers  of  the  gentes  were 
withdrawn,  and  transferred  to  new  political  bodies  before  his- 
torical composition  among  the  Romans  had  fairly  commenced. 
There  was,  therefore,  no  practical  necessity  resting  upon  the 
Romans  for  preserving  the  special  features  of  a  system  substan- 
tially set  aside.  Gaius,  who  wrote  his  Institutes  in  the  early 
part  of  the  second  century  of  our  era,  took  occasion  to  remark 
that  the  whole  jus  gentiliciuin  had  fallen  into  desuetude,  and 
that  it  was  then  superfluous  to<  treat  the  subject.^  But  at  the 
foundation  of  Rome,  and  for  several  centuries  thereafter,  the 
gentile  organization  was  in  vigorous  activity. 

The  Roman  definition  of  a  gens  and  of  a  gentilis,  and  the 
line  in  which  descent  was  traced  should  be  presented  before 
the  characteristics  of  the  gens  are  considered.  In  the  Topics 
of  Cicero  a  gentilis  is  defined  as  follows:  Those  are  gen- 
tiles who  are  of  the  same  name  among  themselves.  This  is 
insufficient.  Who  were  born  of  free  parents.  Even  that  is  not 
sufficient.  No  one  of  whose  ancestors  has  been  a  slave. 
Something  still  is  wanting.     Who  have  never  suffered  capital 

•  History  of  Ro7iie,  I.  c,  i,  241,  245. 

*  Qui  sint  aiitem  gentiles,  primo  comnientario  rcttulimus ;  ct  cum  illic  ad- 
monuerimus,  totum  gentilicium  jus  in  desuetudinem  abisse,  superuacuum  est,  hoc 
quoque  loco  de  ea  re  curiosius  tractare. — Inst.,  iii,  17. 


THE  ROMAN  GENS.  283 

diminution.  This  perhaps  may  do;  for  I  am  not  aware  that 
Scaevola,  the  Pontiff,  added  anything  to  this  definition.^  There 
is  one  by  Festus:  "A  gentihs  is  described  as  one  both  sprung 
from  the  same  stock,  and  who  is  called  by  the  same  name."^ 
Also  by  Varro :  As  from  an  Aemilius  men  are  born  Aemilii, 
and  gentiles ;  so  from  the  name  Aemilius  terms  are  derived 
pertaining  to  gentilism.^ 

Cicero  does  not  attempt  to  define  a  gens,  but  rather  to  fur- 
nish certain  tests  by  which  the  right  to  the  gentile  connection 
might  be  proved,  or  the  loss  of  it  be  detected.  Neither  of  these 
definitions  show  the  composition  of  a  gens;  that  is,  whether  all, 
or  a  part  only,  of  the  descendants  of  a  supposed  genarch  were 
entitled  to  bear  the  gentile  name;  and,  if  a  part  only,  what 
part.  With  descent  in  the  male  line  the  gens  would  include 
those  only  who  could  trace  their  descent  though  males  exclu- 
sively; and  if  in  the  female  line,  then  through  females  only. 
If  limited  to  neither,  then  all  the  descendants  would  be  included. 
These  definitions  must  have  assumed  that  descent  in  the  male 
line  was  a  fact  known  to  all.  From  other  sources  it  appears 
that  those  only  belonged  to  the  gens  who  could  trace  their 
descent  through  its  male  members.  Roman  genealogies  sup- 
ply this  proof  Cicero  omitted  the  material  fact  that  those 
were  gentiles  who  could  trace  their  descent  through  males  ex- 
clusively from  an  acknowledged  ancestor  within  the  gens.  It 
is  in  part  supplied  by  Festus  and  Varro.  From  an  Aemilius, 
the  latter  remarks,  men  are  born  Aemilii,  and  gentiles;  each 
must  be  born  of  a  male  bearing  the  gentile  name.  But  Cicero's 
definition  also  shows  that  a  gentilis  must  bear  the  gentile  name. 

'  Gentiles  sunt,  qui  inter  se  eodem  nomine  sunt.  Non  est  satis.  Qui  ab 
ingenuis  oriundi  sunt.  Ne  id  quidem  satis  est.  Quorum  majorum  nemo  servitutem 
servivit.  Abest  etiam  nunc.  Qui  capite  non  sunt  deminuti.  Hoc  fortasse  satis 
est.  Nihil  enim  video  Scaevolam,  Pontificem,  ad  banc  definitionem  addidisse. 
— Cicero,  Topica  6. 

*  Gentilis  dicitur  et  ex  eodem  genere  ortus,  et  is  qui  simili  nomine  appellatur, 
—  Quoted  in  Smith's  Die.  Gk.  Ss'  Rom.  Antiq.,  Article,  Gens. 

*  The  following  is  the  text  extended :  Ut  in  hominibus  quaedam  sunt  agnationes 
ac  gentilitates,  sic  in  verbis ;  ut  enim  ab  Aemilio  homines  orti  Aemilii,  ac  gentiles ; 
sic  ab  Aemilii  nomine  declinatae  voces  in  genlilitate  nominali;  ab  eo  enim,  quod 
est  impositum  recto  casu  Aemilius,  Aemilium,  Aemilios,  Aemiliorum;  et  sic 
reliqua,  ejusdem  quae  sunt  stirpes. — Varro,  De  Lingua  Latina,  lib.  viii,  cap.  4. 


284  ANCIENT  SOCIETY. 

In  the  address  of  the  Roman  tribune  Canuleius  (445  B.  C), 
on  his  proposition  to  repeal  an  existing  law  forbidding  inter- 
marriage between  patricians  and  plebeians,  there  is  a  statement 
implying  descent  in  the  male  line.  For  what  else  is  there  in 
the  matter,  he  remarks,  if  a  patrician  man  shall  wed  a  plebeian 
woman,  or  a  plebeian  man  a  patrician  woman?  What  right 
in  the  end  is  thereby  changed?  The  children  surely  follow 
the  father,  (nempe  patrem  sequimtur  liberi.)  ^ 

A  practical  illustration,  derived  from  transmitted  gentile 
names,  will  show  conclusively  that  descent  was  in  the  male 
line.  Julia,  the  sister  of  Caius  Julius  Caesar,  married  Marcus 
Attius  Balbus.  Her  name  shows  that  she  belonged  to  the 
Julian  gens.^  Her  daughter  Attia,  according  to  custom,  took 
the  gentile  name  of  her  father  and  belonged  to  the  Attian 
gens.  Attia  married  Caius  Octavius,  and  became  the  mother 
of  Caius  Octavius,  the  first  Roman  emperor.  The  son,  as  usual, 
took  the  gentile  name  of  his  father,  and  belonged  to  the  Oc- 
tavian  gens.^  After  becoming  emperor  he  added  the  names 
Caesar  Augustus. 

In  the  Roman  gens  descent  was  in  the  male  line  from  Au- 
gustus back  to  Romulus,  and  for  an  unknown  period  back  of 
the  latter.  None  were  gentiles  except  such  as  could  trace  their 
descent  through  males  exclusively  from  some  acknowledged 
ancestor  within  the  gens.  But  it  was  unnecessary,  because  im- 
possible, that  all  should  be  able  to  trace  their  descent  from  the 
same  common  ancestor;  and  much  less  from  the  eponymous 
ancestor. 

1  Quid  enim  in  re  est  aliud,  si  plebeiam  patricius  duxerit,  si  patriciam  plebeius  ? 
Quid  juris  tandem  mutatur  ?  nempe  patrem  sequuntur  liberi. — Livy,  lib.  iv,  cap.  4. 

*  "When  there  was  only  one  daughter  in  a  family,  she  used  to  be  called  from 
the  name  of  the  gens ;  thus,  Tullia,  the  daughter  of  Cicero,  Julia,  the  daughter  of 
Caesar;  Octavia,  the  sister  of  Augustus,  etc.;  and  they  retained  the  same  name 
after  they  were  married.  When  there  were  two  daughters,  the  one  was  called 
Major  and  the  other  Minor.  If  there  were  more  than  two,  they  were  distinguished 
by  their  number:  thus.  Prima,  Secunda,  Tertia,  Quarta,  Quinta,  etc.;  or  more 
softly,  TertuUa,  Quartilla,  Quintilla,  etc.  .  .  .  During  the  flourishing  state  of  the 
republic,  the  names  of  the  gentes,  and  surnames  of  the  familioe,  always  remained 
fixed  and  certain.  They  were  common  to  all  the  children  of  the  family,  and 
descended  to  their  posterity.  But  after  the  subversion  of  liberty  they  were  changed 
and  confounded." — Adams's  Roman  Antiquities,  Glasgow  ed.,  1825,  p.  27. 

3  Suetonius,  I'it.  Octaviamis,  c.  3  and  4. 


THE  ROMAN  GENS.  285 

It  will  be  noticed  that  in  each  of  the  above  cases,  to  which  a 
large  number  might  be  added,  the  persons  married  out  of  the 
gens.  Such  was  undoubtedly  the  general  usage  by  customary 
law. 

The  Roman  gens  was  individualized  by  the  following  rights, 
privileges  and  obligations : 

I.  Mutual  rights  of  succession  to  the  property  of  deceased 
gcjitilcs. 
II.    The  possession  of  a  conimon  burial  place. 

III.  Common  religions  rites;  sacra  gentilicia. 

IV.  The  obligation  not  to  marry  in  the  gens. 
V.    The  possession  of  lands  in  common. 

VI.  Reciprocal  obligations  of  help,  defense,  and  redress  of 
injuries. 
VII.    TJie  right  to  bear  the  gentile  name. 
VIII.    The  7'ight  to  adopt  strangers  into  the  gens. 

IX.    The  right  to  elect  and  depose  its  chiefs ;  query. 

These  several  characteristics  will  be  considered  in  the  order 
named. 

I.  Mutual  rights  of  succession  to  the  property  of  deceased  gen- 
tiles. 

When  the  law  of  the  Twelve  Tables  was  promulgated  (45  i 
B.  C),  the  ancient  rule,  which  presumptively  distributed  the  in- 
heritance among  the  gentiles,  had  been  superseded  by  more 
advanced  regulations.  The  estate  of  an  intestate  now  passed, 
first,  to  his  sui  heredcs,  that  is,  to  his  children;  and,  in  default 
of  children,  to  his  lineal  descendants  through  males.^  The 
living  children  took  equally,  and  the  children  of  deceased  sons 
took  the  share  of  their  father  equally.  It  will  be  noticed  that 
the  inheritance  remained  in  the  gens;  the  children  of  the  female 
descendants  of  the  intestate,  who  belonged  to  other  gentes,  be- 
ing excluded.  Second,  if  there  were  no  sui  heredcs,  by  the  same 
law,  the  inheritance  then  passed  to  the  agnates.^  The  agnatic 
kindred  comprised  all  those  persons  who  could  trace  their  de- 
scent through  males  from  the  same  common  ancestor  with  the 
intestate.     In  virtue  of  such  a  descent  they  all  bore  the  same 

^  Gaius,  InsiitiUes,  lib.  iii,  I  and  2.     The  wife  was  a  co-heiress  with  the  children. 
»  lb.,  hb.  iii,  9. 


286  ANCIENT  SOCIETY. 

gentile  name,  females  as  well  as  males,  and  were  nearer  in  de- 
gree to  the  decedent  than  the  remaining  gentiles.  The  agnates 
nearest  in  degree  had  the  preference;  first,  the  brothers  and 
unmarried  sisters;  second,  the  paternal  uncles  and  unmarried 
aunts  of  the  intestate,  and  so  on  until  the  agnatic  relatives  were 
exhausted.  Third,  if  there  were  no  agnates  of  the  intestate,  the 
same  law  called  the  gentiles  to  the  inheritance.^  This  seems  at 
first  sight  remarkable;  because  the  children  of  the  intestate's 
sisters  were  excluded  from  the  inheritance,  and  the  preference 
given  to  gentile  kinsmen  so  remote  that  their  relationship  to  the 
intestate  could  not  be  traced  at  all,  and  only  existed  in  virtue  of 
an  ancient  lineage  preserved  by  a  common  gentile  name.  The 
reason,  however,  is  apparent;  the  children  of  the  sisters  of  the 
intestate  belonged  to  another  gens,  and  the  gentile  right  pre- 
dominated over  greater  nearness  of  consanguinity,  because  the 
principle  which  retained  the  property  in  the  gens  was  funda- 
mental. It  is  a  plain  inference  from  the  law  of  the  Twelve  Ta- 
bles that  inheritance  began  in  the  inverse  order,  and  that  the 
three  classes  of  heirs  represent  the  three  successive  rules  of  in- 
heritance; namely:  first,  the  gentiles;  second,  the  agnates, 
among  whom  were  the  children  of  the  decedent  after  descent 
was  changed  to  the  male  line;  and  third,  the  children,  to  the 
exclusion  of  the  remaining  agnates. 

A  female,  by  her  marriage,  suffered  what  was  technically 
called  a  loss  of  franchise  or  capital  diminution  (demimitio  cap- 
itis), by  which  she  forfeited  her  agnatic  rights.  Here  again 
the  reason  is  apparent.  If  after  her  marriage  she  could  inherit 
as  an  agnate  it  would  transfer  the  property  inherited  from  her 
own  gens  to  that  of  her  husband.  An  unmarried  sister  could 
inherit,  but  a  married  sister  could  not. 

With  our  knowledge  of  the  archaic  principles  of  the  gens,  we 
are  enabled  to  glance  backward  to  the  time  when  descent  in 
the  Latin  gens  was  in  the  female  line,  when  property  was  in- 
considerable, and  distributed  among  the  gentiles;  not  neces- 
sarily within  the  life-time  of  the  Latin  gens,  for  its  existence 
reached  back  of  the  period  of  their  occupation  of  Italy.  That 
the  Roman  gens  had  passed  from  the  archaic  into  its  historical 

1  Gaius,  Iiist.f  lib.  iii,  17. 


THE  ROMAN  GENS. 


287 


form  is  partially  indicated  by  the  reversion  of  property  in  cer- 
tain cases  to  the  gentiles.^ 

"The  right  of  succeeding  to  the  property  of  members  who 
died  without  kin  and  intestate,"  Niebuhr  remarks,  "was  that 
which  lasted  the  longest;  so  long  indeed,  as  to  engage  the  at- 
tention of  the  jurists,  and  even — though  assuredly  not  as  any- 
thing more  than  a  historical  question — that  of  Gaius,  the  man- 
uscript of  whom  is  unfortunately  illegible  in  this  part."^ 
II.  A  common  burial  place. 

The  sentiment  of  gentilism  seems  to  have  been  stronger  in 
the  Upper  Status  of  barbarism  than  in  earlier  conditions,  through 
a  higher  organization  of  society,  and  through  mental  and 
moral  advancement.  Each  gens  usually  had  a  burial  place  for 
the  exclusive  use  of  its  members  as  a  place  of  sepulture.  A  few 
illustrations  will  exhibit  Roman  usages  with  respect  to  burial. 

Appius  Claudius,  the  chief  of  the  Claudian  gens,  removed 
from  Regili,  a  town  of  the  Sabines,  to  Rome  in  the  time  of 
Romulus,  where  in  due  time  he  was  made  a  senator,  and  thus 
a  patrician.  He  brought  with  him  the  Claudian  gens,  and  such 
a  number  of  clients  that  his  accession  to  Rome  was  regarded 
as  an  important  event.  Suetonius  remarks  that  the  gens  re- 
ceived from  the  state  lands  upon  the  Anio  for  their  clients,  and 

'  A  singular  question  arose  between  the  Marcelli  and  Claudii,  two  families  of  the 
Claudian  gens,  with  respect  to  the  estate  of  the  son  of  a  freedman  of  the  IMarcelli ; 
the  former  claiming  by  right  of  family,  and  the  latter  by  right  of  gens.  The  law 
of  the  Twelve  Tables  gave  the  estate  of  a  freedman  to  his  former  master,  who  by 
the  act  of  manumission  became  his  patron,  provided  he  died  intestate,  and  without 
stii  heredes  ;  but  it  did  not  reach  the  case  of  the  son  of  a  freedman.  The  fact  that 
the  Claudii  were  a  patrician  family,  and  the  Marcelli  were  not,  could  not  affect  the 
question.  The  freedman  did  not  acquire  gentile  rights  in  his  master's  gens  by  his 
manumission,  although  he  was  allowed  to  adopt  the  gentile  name  of  his  patron ; 
as  Cicero's  freedman,  Tyro,  was  called  M.  Tullius  Tyro.  It  is  not  known  how  the 
case,  which  is  mentioned  by  Cicero  {De  Oratore,  i,  39),  and  commented  upon  by 
Long  (Smith's  Die.  Gk.  (s'  Rom.  Aniiq.,  Art.  Gens),  and  Niebuhr,  was  decided; 
but  the  latter  suggests  that  it  was  probably  against  the  Claudii  {Hisl.  of  Home,  i, 
245,  note).  It  is  difficult  to  discover  how  any  claim  whatever  could  be  urged  by 
the  Claudii ;  or  any  by  the  Marcelli,  except  through  an  extension  of  the  patronal 
right  by  judicial  construction.  It  is  a  noteworthy  case,  because  it  shows  how 
strongly  the  mutual  rights  with  respect  to  the  inheritance  of  property  were  in- 
trenched in  the  gens. 

*  History  of  Rome,  i,  242. 


288  ANCIENT  SOCIETY. 

a  burial  place  for  themselves  near  the  capitol.^  This  statement 
seems  to  imply  that  a  common  burial  place  was,  at  that  time, 
considered  indispensable  to  a  gens.  The  Claudii,  having  aban- 
doned their  Sabine  connection  and  identified  themselves  with 
the  Roman  people,  received  both  a  grant  of  lands  and  a  burial 
place  for  the  gens,  to  place  them  in  equality  of  condition  with 
the  Roman  gentes.  The  transaction  reveals  a  custom  of  the 
times. 

The  family  tomb  had  not  entirely  superseded  that  of  the 
gens  in  the  time  of  Julius  Caesar,  as  was  illustrated  by  the  case 
of  Quintilius  Varus,  who,  having  lost  his  army  in  Germany, 
destroyed  himself,  and  his  body  fell  into  the  hands  of  the  en- 
emy. The  half-burned  body  of  Varus,  says  Paterculus,  was 
mangled  by  the  savage  enemy;  his  head  was  cut  off,  and 
brought  to  Maroboduus,  and  by  him  having  been  sent  to  Cae- 
sar, was  at  length  honored  with  burial  in  the  gentile  sepulchre.^ 

In  his  treatise  on  the  laws,  Cicero  refers  to  the  usages  of  his 
own  times  in  respect  to  burial  in  the  following  language;  now 
the  sacredness  of  burial  places  is  so  great  that  it  is  affirmed 
to  be  wrong  to  perform  the  burial  independently  of  the  sacred 
rites  of  the  gens.  Thus  in  the  time  of  our  ancestors  A.  Tor- 
quatus  decided  respecting  the  Popilian  gens.^  The  purport  of 
the  statement  is  that  it  was  a  religious  duty  to  bury  the  dead 
with  sacred  rites,  and  when  possible  in  land  belonging  to  the 
gens.  It  further  appears  that  cremation  and  inhumation  were 
both  practiced  prior  to  the  promulgation  of  the  Twelve  Tables, 
which  prohibited  the  burying  or  burning  of  dead  bodies  within 
the  city.*  The  columbarium,  which  would  usually  accommodate 
several  hundred  urns,  was  eminently  adapted  to  the  uses  of  a 
gens.  In  the  time  of  Cicero  the  gentile  organization  had  fallen 
into  decadence,  but  certain  usages  peculiar  to  it  had  remained, 

'  Patricia  gens  Claudia  .  .  .  agrum  insuper  trans  Anienem  clientibus  locumque 
sibi  ad  sepulturam  sub  capitolio,  publice  accepit. — Suet.,  Vit.  Tiberius,  cap.  i. 

*  Vari  corpus  semiustrum  hostilis  laceraverat  feritas ;  caput  ejus  aljscisum,  latum- 
que  ad  Maroboduum,  et  ab  eo  missum  ad  Caesarem,  gentilitii  tumuli  sepultura 
honoratum  est. —  Velleius  Faterculits,  ii,  1 19. 

^  lam  tanta  religio  est  sepulcrorum,  ut  extra  sacra  et  gentem  inferi  fas  ncgent 
esse;  idque  apud  majores  nostros  A.  Torquatus  in  genie  Popiliajudicavit. — De  Leg., 
ii,  22. 

*  Cicero,  De  Leg.,  ii,  23. 


THE  ROMAN  GENS.  289 

and  that  respecting  a  common  burial  place  among  the  number. 
The  family  tomb  began  to  take  the  place  of  that  of  the  gens,  as 
the  families  in  the  ancient  gentcs  rose  into  complete  autonomy; 
nevertheless,  remains  of  ancient  gentile  usages  with  respect  to 
burial  manifested  themselves  in  various  ways,  and  were  still 
fresh  in  the  history  of  the  past. 
III.    Covnnon  sacred  rites ;  saera  gentilicia. 

The  Roman  sacra  embody  our  idea  of  divine  worship,  and 
were  either  public  or  private.  Religious  rites  performed  by  a 
gens  were  called  sacra  privata,  or  sacra  gentilicia.  They  were 
performed  regularly  at  stated  periods  by  the  gens.'  Cases  are 
mentioned  in  which  the  expenses  of  maintaining  these  rites  had 
become  a  burden  in  consequence  of  the  reduced  numbers  in 
the  gens.  They  were  gained  and  lost  by  circumstances,  e.  g., 
adoption  or  marriage.^  "That  the  members  of  the  Roman  gens 
had  common  sacred  rites,"  observes  Niebuhr,  "is  well  known; 
there  were  sacrifices  appointed  for  stated  days  and  places."' 
The  sacred  rites,  both  public  and  private,  were  under  pontif- 
ical regulation  exclusively,  and  not  subject  to  civil  cognizance.* 

The  religious  rites  of  the  Romans  seem  to  have  had  their 
primary  connection  with  the  gens  rather  than  the  family.  A 
college  of  pontiffs,  of  curiones,  and  of  augurs,  with  an  elaborate 
system  of  worship  under  these  priesthoods,  in  due  time  grew 
into  form  and  became  established;  but  the  system  was  tolerant 
and  free.  The  priesthood  was  in  the  main  elective.^  The  head 
of  every  family  also  was  the  priest  of  the  household.^  The  gen- 
tes  of  the  Greeks  and  Romans  were  the  fountains  from  which 
flowed  the  stupendous  mythology  of  the  classical  world. 

In  the  early  days  of  Rome  many  gentes  had  each  their  own 
sacellum  for  the  performance  of  their  religious  rites.  Several 
gentes  had  each  special  sacrifices  to  perform,  which  had  been 

1  "There  were  certain  sacred  rites  {^sacra gentilicia)  which  belonged  to  a  gens, 
to  the  observance  of  which  all  the  members  of  a  gens,  as  such,  were  bound, 
whether  they  were  members  by  birth,  adoption  or  adrogation.  A  person  was 
freed  from  the  observance  of  such  sacra,  and  lost  the  privileges  connected  with  his 
gentile  rights  when  he  lost  his  gens." — Smith's  Die.  Aniiq.,  Gens. 

*  Cicero,  Piv  Domo,  c.  13. 
8  History  of  Rome,  i,  241. 

*  Cicero,  De  Leg.,  ii,  23. 

^  Dionysius,  ii,  22.  6  lb.,  ii,  21. 


290 


ANCIENT  SOCIETY. 


transmitted  from  generation  to  generation,  and  were  regarded 
as  obligatory;  as  those  of  the  Nautii  to  Minerva,  of  the  Fabii 
to  Hercules,  and  of  the  Horatii  in  expiation  of  the  sororicide 
committed  by  Horatius.^  It  is  sufficient  for  my  purpose  to 
have  shown  generally  that  each  gens  had  its  own  religious  rites 
as  one  of  the  attributes  of  the  organization. 

IV.  The  obligation  not  to  marry  in  the  gens. 

Gentile  regulations  were  customs  having  the  force  of  law. 
The  obligation  not  to  marry  in  the  gens  was  one  of  the  num- 
ber. It  does  not  appear  to  have  been  turned,  at  a  later  day, 
into  a  legal  enactment ;  but  evidence  that  such  was  the  rule  of 
the  gens  appears  in  a  number  of  ways.  The  Roman  genealo- 
gies show  that  marriage  was  out  of  the  gens,  of  which  instances 
have  been  given.  This,  as  we  have  seen,  was  the  archaic  rule 
for  reasons  of  consanguinity.  A  woman  by  her  marriage 
forfeited  her  agnatic  rights,  to  which  rule  there  was  no  ex- 
ception. It  was  to  prevent  the  transfer  of  property  by  marriage 
from  one  gens  to  another,  from  the  gens  of  her  birth  to  the 
gens  of  her  husband.  The  exclusion  of  the  children  of  a 
female  from  all  rights  of  inheritance  from  a  maternal  uncle  or 
maternal  grandfather,  which  followed,  was  for  the  same  reason. 
As  the  female  was  required  to  marry  out  of  her  gens  her 
children  would  be  of  the  gens  of  their  father,  and  there  could 
be  no  privity  of  inheritance  between  members  of  different 
gentes. 

V.  The  possession  of  lands  in  common. 

The  ownership  of  lands  in  common  was  so  general  among 
barbarous  tribes  that  the  existence  of  the  same  tenure  amonsf 
the  Latin  tribes  is  no  occasion  for  surprise.  A  portion  of  their 
lands  seems  to  have  been  held  in  severalty  by  individuals  from 
a  very  early  period.  No  time  can  be  assigned  when  this  was 
not  the  case;  but  at  first  it  was  probably  the  possessory  right 
to  lands  in  actual  occupation,  so  often  before  referred  to,  which 
was  recognized  as  far  back  as  the  Lower  Status  of  barbarism. 

Among  the  rustic  Latin  tribes,  lands  were  held  in  common 
by  each  tribe,  other  lands  by  the  gentes,  and  still  other  by 
households. 

*  Niebuhr's  History  of  Rome,  i,  241. 


THE  ROMAN  GENS.  29 1 

Allotments  of  lands  to  individuals  became  common  at  Rome 
in  the  time  of  Romulus,  and  afterwards  quite  general.  Varro 
and  Dionysius  both  state  that  Romulus  allotted  two  jugera 
(about  two  and  a  quarter  acres)  to  each  man.'  Similar  allot- 
ments are  said  to  have  been  afterwards  made  by  Numa  and 
Servius  Tullius.  They  were  the  beginnings  of  absolute  owner- 
ship in  severalty,  and  presuppose  a  settled  life  as  well  as  a  great 
advancement  in  intelligence.  It  was  not  only  admeasured  but 
granted  by  the  government,  which  was  very  different  from  a 
possessory  right  in  lands  growing  out  of  an  individual  act.  The 
idea  of  absolute  individual  ownership  of  land  was  a  growth 
through  experience,  the  complete  attainment  of  which  belongs 
to  the  period  of  civilization.  These  lands,  however,  were  taken 
from  those  held  in  common  by  the  Roman  people.  Gentes, 
curiee  and  tribes  held  certain  lands  in  common  after  civilization 
had  commenced,  beyond  those  held  by  individuals  in  severalty. 

Mommsen  remarks  that  "the  Roman  territory  was  divided  in 
the  earliest  times  into  a  number  of  clan-districts,  which  were 
subsequently  employed  in  the  formation  of  the  earliest  rural 
wards  {tribus  riisticce).  .  .  .  These  names  are  not,  like  those 
of  the  districts  added  at  a  later  period,  derived  from  the  locali- 
ties, but  are  formed  without  exception  from  the  names  of  the 
clans." ^  Each  gens  held  an  independent  district,  and  of  neces- 
sity was  localized  upon  it.  This  was  a  step  in  advance,  al- 
though it  was  the  prevailing  practice  not  only  in  the  rural  dis- 
tricts, but  also  in  Rome,  for  the  gentes  to  localize  in  separate 
areas.  Mommsen  further  observes:  "As  each  household  had 
its  own  portion  of  land,  so  the  clan-household  or  village,  had 
clan-lands  belonging  to  it,  which,  as  will  afterwards  be  shown, 
were  managed  up  to  a  comparatively  late  period  after  the  anal- 
ogy of  house-lands,  that  is,  on  the  system  of  joint  possession. 
....  These  clanships,  however,  were  from  the  beginning  re- 
garded not  as  independent  societies,  but  as  integral  parts  of  a 

'  Bina  jugera  quod  a  Romulo  primum  diuisa  [dicebantur]  viritim,  quae  [quod] 
haeredem  sequerentur,  haeredium  appellarunt. — Varro,  De  Re  Rustica,  lib.  i, 
cap.  10. 

2  History  of  Rome,  i,  62.  He  names  the  Camillii,  Galerii,  Lemonii,  Pollii, 
Pupinii,  Voltinii,  Aemilii,  Cornelii,  Fabii,  Horatii,  Menenii,  Papirii,  Romilii, 
Sergii,  Veturii. — lb.,  p.  63. 


292 


ANCIENT  SOCIETY. 


political  community  {civitas  popiili).  This  first  presents  itself 
as  an  aggregate  of  a  number  of  clan-villages  of  the  same  stock, 
language  and  manners,  bound  to  mutual  observance  of  law  and 
mutual  legal  redress  and  to  united  action  in  aggression  and  de- 
fense."^ Clan  is  here  used  by  Mommsen,  or  his  translator,  in 
the  place  of  gens,  and  elsewhere  canton  is  used  in  the  place  of 
tribe,  which  are  the  more  singular  since  the  Latin  language 
furnishes  specific  terms  for  these  organizations  which  have  be- 
come historical.  Mommsen  represents  the  Latin  tribes  anterior 
to  the  founding  of  Rome  as  holding  lands  by  households,  by 
gentes  and  by  tribes;  and  he  further  shows  the  ascending  series 
of  social  organizations  in  these  tribes ;  a  comparison  of  which 
with  those  of  the  Iroquois,  discloses  their  close  parallelism, 
namely,  the  gens,  tribe  and  confederacy.^  The  phratry  is  not 
mentioned  although  it  probably  existed.  The  household  re- 
ferred to  could  scarcely  have  been  a  single  family.     It  is  not 

'  History  of  Rome,  i,  63. 

*  "A  fixed  local  centre  was  quite  as  necessary  in  the  case  of  such  a  canton  as  in 
that  of  a  clanship ;  but  as  the  members  of  the  clan,  or,  in  other  words,  the  con- 
stituent elements  of  the  canton,  dwelt  in  villages,  the  centre  of  the  canton  can- 
not have  been  a  town  or  place  of  joint  settlement  in  the  strict  sense.  It  must, 
on  the  contrary,  have  been  simply  a  place  of  common  assembly,  containing  the 
seat  of  justice  and  the  common  sanctuary  of  the  canton,  where  the  members  of 
the  canton  met  every  eighth  day  for  purposes  of  intercourse  and  amusement,  and 
where,  in  case  of  war,  they  obtained  a  safer  shelter  for  themselves  and  their  cattle 
than  in  the  villages ;  in  ordinary  circumstances  this  place  of  meeting  was  not  at  all 
or  but  scantily  inhabited.  .  .  .  These  cantons  accordingly,  having  their  rendezvous 
in  some  stronghold,  and  including  a  certain  number  of  clanships,  form  the  primi- 
tive political  unities  with  which  Italian  history  begins.  .  .  .  All  of  these  cantons 
were  in  primitive  times  politically  sovereign,  and  each  of  them  was  governed  by  its 
prince  with  the  co-operation  of  the  council  of  elders  and  the  assembly  of  warriors. 
Nevertheless  the  feeling  of  fellowship  based  on  community  of  descent  and  of  lan- 
guage not  only  pervaded  the  whole  of  them,  but  manifested  itself  in  an  important 
religious  and  political  institution — the  perpetual  league  of  the  collective  Latin  can- 
tons."— Hist,  of  Rome,  i,  64-66.  The  statement  that  the  canton  or  tribe  was  govern- 
ed by  its  prince  with  the  co-operation  of  the  council,  etc.,  is  a  reversal  of  the  correct 
statement,  and  therefore  misleading.  We  must  suppose  that  the  military  commander 
held  an  elective  office,  and  that  he  was  deposable  at  the  pleasure  of  the  constituency 
who  elected  him.  Further  than  this,  there  is  no  ground  for  assuming  that  he  pos- 
sessed any  civil  functions.  It  is  a  reasonable,  if  not  a  necessary  conclusion,  there- 
fore, that  the  tribe  was  governed  by  a  council  composed  of  the  chiefs  of  the  gentes, 
and  by  an  assembly  of  the  warriors,  with  the  co-operation  of  a  general  military 
commander,  whose  functions  were  exclusively  military.  It  was  a  government  of 
three  powers,  common  in  the  Upper  Status  of  barbarism,  and  identified  with  insti- 
tutions essentially  democratical. 


THE  ROMAN  GENS.  293 

unlikely  that  it  was  composed  of  related  families  who  occupied 
a  joint-tenement  house,  and  practiced  communism  in  living  in 
the  household. 

VI.  Reciprocal  obligations  of  help,  defense  and  redress  of  in- 
juries. 
During  the  period  of  barbarism  the  dependence  of  the  gen- 
tiles upon  each  other  for  the  protection  of  personal  rights  would 
be  constant;  but  after  the  establishment  of  political  society, 
the  gentilis,  now  a  citizen,  would  turn  to  the  law  and  to  the 
state  for  the  protection  before  administered  by  his  gens.  This 
feature  of  the  ancient  system  would  be  one  of  the  first  to  disap- 
pear under  the  new.  Accordingly  but  slight  references  to  these 
mutual  obligations  are  found  in  the  early  authors.  It  does  not 
follow,  however,  that  the  gentiles  did  not  practice  these  duties  to 
each  other  in  the  previous  period;  on  the  contrary,  the  inference 
that  they  did  is  a  necessary  one  from  the  principles  of  the  gen- 
tile organization.  Remains  of  these  special  usages  appear,  un- 
der special  circumstances,  well  down  in  the  historical  period. 
When  Appius  Claudius  was  cast  into  prison  (about  432  B.  C), 
Caius  Claudius,  then  at  enmity  with  him,  put  on  mourning,  as 
well  as  the  whole  Claudian  gens.^  A  calamity  or  disgrace 
falling  upon  one  member  of  the  body  was  felt  and  shared  by 
all.  During  the  second  Punic  war,  Niebuhr  remarks,  "the  gen- 
tiles united  to  ransom  their  fellows  who  were  in  captivity,  and 
were  forbidden  to  do  it  by  the  senate.  This  obligation  is  an 
essential  characteristic  of  the  gens.""  In  the  caie  of  Camillus, 
against  whom  a  tribune  had  lodged  an  accusation  on  account 
of  the  Veientian  spoil,  he  summoned  to  his  house  before  the  day 
appointed  for  his  trial  his  tribesmen  and  clients  to  ask  their  ad- 
vice, and  he  received  for  an  answer  that  they  would  collect 
whatever  sum  he  was  condemned  to  pay;  but  to  clear  him  was 
impossible.^  The  active  principle  of  gentilism  is  plainly  illustra- 
ted in  these  cases.     Niebuhr  further  remarks  that  the  obliga- 

'  Ap.  Claudio  in  vinculo  ducto,  C.  Claudius  inimicum  Claudiamque  omnem 
gentem  sordidalum  fuisse. — Livy,  vi,  20. 

'^  History  of  Rome,  i,  242. 

^  Responsum  tulisse,  se  collecturos,  quanti  damnatus  esset,  absolvere  eum  nou 
posse. — Liv.,  V,  32. 


294 


ANCIENT  SOCIETY. 


tion  to  assist  their  indigent  gentiles  rested  on  the  members  of  the 

Roman  gens.^ 

VII.  The  right  to  bear  the  gentile  name. 

This  followed  necessarily  from  the  nature  of  the  gens.  All 
such  persons  as  were  born  sons  or  daughters  of  a  male  member 
of  the  gens  were  themselves  members,  and  of  right  entitled  to 
bear  the  gentile  name.  In  the  lapse  of  time  it  was  found  im- 
possible for  the  members  of  a  gens  to  trace  their  descent  back 
to  the  founder,  and,  consequently,  for  different  families  within 
the  gens  to  find  their  connection  through  a  later  common  an- 
cestor. Whilst  this  inabilit}^  proved  the  antiquity  of  the  lineage, 
it  was  no  evidence  that  these  families  had  not  sprung  from  a 
remote  common  ancestor.  The  fact  that  persons  were  born 
in  the  gens,  and  that  each  could  trace  his  descent  through  a 
series  of  acknowledged  members  of  the  gens,  was  sufficient 
evidence  of  gentile  descent,  and  strong  evidence  of  the  blood 
connection  of  all  the  gentiles.  But  some  investigators,  Nie- 
buhr  among  the  number,'  have  denied  the  existence  of  any 
blood  relationship  between  the  families  in  a  gens,  since  they 
could  not  show  a  connection  through  a  common  ancestor.  This 
treats  the  gens  as  a  purely  fictitious  organization,  and  is  there- 
fore untenable.  Niebuhr's  inference  against  a  blood  connec- 
tion from  Cicero's  definition  is  not  sustainable.  If  the  right  of 
a  person  to  bear  the  gentile  name  were  questioned,  proof  of 
the  right  would  consist,  not  in  tracing  his  descent  from  the 
genarch,  but  from  a  number  of  acknowledged  ancestors  within 
the  gens.  Without  written  records  the  number  of  generations 
through  which  a  pedigree  might  be  traced  would  be  limited. 
Few  families  in  the  same  gens  might  not  be  able  to  find  a  com- 
mon ancestor,  but  it  would  not  follow  that  they  were  not  of 
common  descent  from  some  remote  ancestor  within  the  gens.^ 

^History  of  Rome,  i,  242:  citing  Dio7iysins,  ii,  10:  (f'(5fz  rovl,  TTfAaraS) 
r(Sv  avaXcoiLtdToav  gJs  rovi  ykvEi  Ttpodtjuovrai  jnere'xsiy. 

2  History  of  Rome,  i,  240. 

3  "Nevertheless,  affinity  in  blood  always  appeared  to  the  Romans  to  lie  at  the 
root  of  the  connection  between  the  members  of  the  clan,  and  still  more  between 
those  of  a  family;  and  the  Roman  community  can  only  have  interfered  with  these 
groups  to  a  limited  extent  consistent  with  the  retention  of  their  fundamental  char- 
acter of  affinity." — Mommsen's  History  of  Rotne,  i,  103. 


THE  ROMAN  GENS.  295 

After  descent  was    changed    to  the  male  line   the   ancient 
names  of  the  gentes,  which  not  unlikely  were  taken  from  ani- 
mals,^  or  inanimate    objects,   gave   place  to    personal    names. 
Some  individual,  distinguished  in  the  history  of  the  gens,  be- 
came its  eponymous   ancestor,  and  this  person,  as  elsewhere 
suggested,  was  not  unlikely  superseded  by  another  at  long  in- 
tervals of  time.     When  a  gens  divided  in  consequence  of  sepa- 
ration in  area,  one  division  would  be  apt  to  take  a  new  name; 
but  such  a  change  of  name  would  not  disturb  the  kinship  upon 
which  the  gens  was  founded.     When  it  is  considered  that  the 
lineage  of  the  Roman  gentes,  under  changes  of  names,  ascended 
to  the  time  when  the  Latins,  Greeks  and  the  Sanskrit  speaking 
people  of  India  were  one  people,  without  reaching  its  source, 
some  conception  of  its  antiquity  may  be  gained.     The  loss  of 
the  gentile  name  at  any  time  by  any  individual  was  the  most 
improbable  of  all  occurrences;   consequently  its  possession  was 
the  highest  evidence  that  he  shared  with  his  gentiles  the  sam.e 
ancient  lineage.     There  was  one  way,  and  but  one,  of  adulter- 
ating gentile  descent,  namely:    by  the  adoption  of  strangers 
in  blood  into  the  gens.     This  practice  prevailed,  but  the  extent 
of  it  was  small.      If  Neibuhr  had  claimed  that  the  blood  rela- 
tionship of  the  gentiles  had  become  attenuated  by  lapse  of 
time  to  an  inappreciable  quantity  between  some  of  them,  no 
objection  could  be  taken  to  his  position;  but  a  denial  of  all 
relationship  which  turns  the  gens  into  a  fictitious  aggregation 
of  persons,  without  any  bond  of  union,  controverts  the  principle 
upon  which  the  gens  came  into  existence,  and  which  perpetu- 
ated it  through  three  entire  ethnical  periods. 

Elsewhere  I  have  called  attention  to  the  fact  that  the  gens 
came  in  with  a  system  of  consanguinity  which  reduced  all  con- 
sanguinei  to  a  small  number  of  categories,  and  retained  their 
descendants  indefinitely  in  the  same.  The  relationships  of 
persons  were  easily  traced,  no  matter  how  remote  their  actual 

'  It  is  a  curious  fact  that  Cleisthenes  of  Argos  changed  the  names  of  the  three 
Dorian  tribes  of  Sicyon,  one  to  Hyatae,  signifying  in  the  singular  a  boar;  anotlier 
to  Oneatje,  signifying  an  ass,  and  a  third  to  Choereatae,  signifying  a  little  pig. 
They  were  intended  as  an  insult  to  the  Sicyonians  ;  but  they  remained  during  his 
life-time,  and  for  si.xty  years  afterwards.  Did  the  idea  of  these  animal  names  come 
down  through  tradition  ? — See  Grote's  History  of  Greece,  iii,  33,  36. 


296  ANCIENT  SOCIETY. 

common  ancestor.  In  an  Iroquois  gens  of  five  hundred  per- 
sons, all  its  members  are  related  to  each  other  and  each  person 
knows  or  can  find  his  relationship  to  every  other;  so  that  the 
fact  of  kin  was  perpetually  present  in  the  gens  of  the  archaic 
period.  With  the  rise  of  the  monogamian  family,  a  new  and 
totally  different  system  of  consanguinity  came  in,  under  which 
the  relationships  between  collaterals  soon  disappeared.  Such 
was  the  system  of  the  Latin  and  Grecian  tribes  at  the  com- 
mencement of  the  historical  period.  That  which  preceded  it 
was,  presumptively  at  least,  Turanian,  under  which  the  rela- 
tionships of  the  gentiles  to  each  other  would  have  been  known. 

After  the  decadence  of  the  gentile  organization  commenced, 
new  gentes  ceased  to  form  by  the  old  process  of  segmentation; 
and  some  of  those  existing  died  out.  This  tended  to  enhance 
the  value  of  gentile  descent  as  a  lineage.  In  the  times  of  the 
empire,  new  families  were  constantly  establishing  themselves  in 
Rome  from  foreign  parts,  and  assuming  gentile  names  to  gain 
social  advantages.  This  practice  being  considered  an  abuse, 
the  Emperor  Claudius  (A.  D.  40-54),  prohibited  foreigners  from 
assuming  Roman  names,  especially  those  of  the  ancient  gentes.^ 
Roman  families,  belonging  to  the  historical  gentes,  placed  the 
highest  value  upon  their  lineages  both  under  the  republic  and 
the  empire. 

All  the  members  of  a  gens  were  free,  and  equal  in  their 
rights  and  privileges,  the  poorest  as  well  as  the  richest,  the  dis- 
tinguished as  well  as  the  obscure;  and  they  shared  equally  in 
whatever  dignity  the  gentile  name  conferred  which  they  inher- 
ited as  a  birthright.  Liberty,  equality  and  fraternity  were  car- 
dinal principles  of  the  Roman  gens,  not  less  certainly  than  of 
the  Grecian,  and  of  the  American  Indian. 
VIII.    The  right  of  adopting  strangers  in  blood  into  the  gens. 

In  the  times  of  the  republic,  and  also  of  the  empire,  adop- 
tion into  the  family,  which  carried  the  person  into  the  gens  of 
the  family,  was  practiced;  but  it  was  attended  with  formalities 
which  rendered  it  difficult.  A  person  who  had  no  children, 
and  who  was  past  the  age  to  expect  them,  might  adopt  a  son 

'  Perigrinae  condiiionis  homines  relati  uscorpare  Romana  nomino,  dundax  at 
gentilicia. — Sueton.,   Vit.  Claudius,  cap.  25. 


THE  ROMAN  GENS. 


297 


with  the  consent  of  the  pontifices,  and  of  the  comitia  awiata. 
The  college  of  pontiffs  were  entitled  to  be  consulted  lest  the 
sacred  rites  of  the  family,  from  which  the  adopted  person  was 
taken,  might  thereby  be  impaired;^  as  also  the  assembly,  be- 
cause the  adopted  person  would  receive  the  gentile  name,  and 
might  inherit  the  estate  of  his  adoptive  father.  From  the  precau- 
tions which  remained  in  the  time  of  Cicero,  the  inference  is  rea- 
sonable that  under  the  previous  system,  which  was  purely  gen- 
tile, the  restrictions  must  have  been  greater  and  the  instances 
rare.  It  is  not  probable  that  adoption  in  the  early  period  was 
allowed  without  the  consent  of  the  gens,  and  of  the  curia  to 
which  the  gens  belonged;  and  if  so,  the  number  adopted  must 
have  been  limited.  Few  details  remain  of  the  ancient  usages 
with  respect  to  adoption. 
IX.    The  right  of  electing  and  deposing  its  eJiiefs;  query. 

The  incompleteness  of  our  knowledge  of  the  Roman  gentes 
is  shown  quite  plainly  by  the  absence  of  direct  information  with 
respect  to  the  tenure  of  the  office  of  chief  [prineeps).  Before 
the  institution  of  political  society  each  gens  had  its  chief,  and 
probably  more  than  one.  When  the  office  became  vacant  it 
was  necessarily  filled,  either  by  the  election  of  one  of  the  gen- 
tiles, as  among  the  Iroquois,  or  taken  by  hereditary  right. 
But  the  absence  of  any  proof  of  hereditary  right,  and  the  pres- 
ence of  the  elective  principle  with  respect  to  nearly  all  offices 
under  the  republic,  and  before  that,  under  the  reges,  leads  to 
the  inference  that  hereditary  right  was  alien  to  the  institutions 
of  the  Latin  tribes.  The  highest  office,  that  of  rex,  was  elective, 
the  office  of  senator  was  elective  or  by  appointment,  and  that 
of  consuls  and  of  inferior  magistrates.  It  varied  with  respect 
to  the  college  of  pontiffs  instituted  by  Numa.  At  first  the 
pontiffs  themselves  filled  vacancies  by  election.  Livy  speaks 
of  the  election  of  a  pontifex  maxinms  by  the  comitia  about 
2 1 2  B.  C.^  By  the  lex  Domitia  the  right  to  elect  the  members 
of  the  several  colleges  of  pontiffs  and  of  priests  was  transferred 
to  the  people,  but  the  law  was  subsequently  modified  by  Sulla. ^ 

'  Cicero,  Pro  Dotno,  cap.  13. 

*  Livy,  XXV,  5. 

'  Smith's  Die,  Art.  Pontifex. 


298  ANCIENT  SOCIETY. 

The  active  presence  of  the  elective  principle  among  the  Latin 
gentes  when  they  first  come  under  historical  notice,  and  from 
that  time  through  the  period  of  the  republic,  furnishes  strong 
grounds  for  the  inference  that  the  office  of  chief  was  elective  in 
tenure.  The  democratic  features  of  their  social  system,  which 
present  themselves  at  so  many  points,  were  inherited  from  the 
gentes.  It  would  require  positive  evidence  that  the  office  of 
chief  passed  by  hereditary  right  to  overcome  the  presumption 
against  it.  The  right  to  elect  carries  with  it  the  right  to  de- 
pose from  office,  where  the  tenure  is  for  life. 

These  chiefs,  or  a  selection  from  them,  composed  the  council 
of  the  several  Latin  tribes  before  the  founding  of  Rome,  which 
was  the  principal  instrument  of  government.  Traces  of  the 
three  powers  co-ordinated  in  the  government  appear  among 
the  Latin  tribes  as  they  did  in  the  Grecian,  namely:  the  coun- 
cil of  chiefs,  the  assembly  of  the  people,  to  which  we  must  sup- 
pose the  more  important  public  measures  were  submitted  for 
adoption  or  rejection,  and  the  military  commander.  Mommsen 
remarks  that  "All  of  these  cantons  [tribes]  were  in  primitive 
times  politically  sovereign,  and  ,each  of  them  was  governed  by 
its  prince,  and  the  co-operation  of  the  council  of  elders,  and 
the  assembly  of  the  warriors."^  The  order  of  Mommsen's 
statement  should  be  reversed,  and  the  statement  qualified. 
This  council,  from  its  functions  and  from  its  central  position  in 
their  social  system,  of  which  it  was  a  growth,  held  of  necessity 
the  supreme  power  in  civil  affairs.  It  was  the  council  that 
governed,  and  not  the  military  commander.  "In  all  the  cities 
belonging  to  civilized  nations  on  the  coasts  of  the  Mediterra- 
nean," Niebuhr  observes,  "a  senate  was  a  no  less  essential  and 
indispensable  part  of  the  state,  than  a  popular  assembly;  it  was 
a  select  body  of  elder  citizens;  such  a  council,  says  Aristotle, 
there  always  is,  whether  the  council  be  aristocratical  or  demo- 
cratical;  even  in  oligarchies,  be  the  number  of  sharers  in  the 
sovereignty  ever  so  small,  certain  councilors  are  appointed  for 
preparing  public  measures."^  The  senate  of  political  society 
succeeded  the  council  of  chiefs  of  gentile  society.  Romulus 
formed  the  first  Roman  senate  of  a  hundred  elders;    and  as 

'  History  of  Rome,  i,  66.  2  /^_^  j^  258. 


THE  ROMAN  GENS. 


299 


there  were  then  but  a  hundred  gentes,  the  inference  is  substan- 
tially conclusive  that  they  were  the  chiefs  of  these  gentes.  The 
office  was  for  life,  and  non-hereditary ;  whence  the  final  infer- 
ence, that  the  office  of  chief  was  at  the  time  elective.  Had  it 
been  otherwise  there  is  every  probability  that  the  Roman  sen- 
ate would  have  been  instituted  as  an  hereditary  body.  Evi- 
dence of  the  essentially  democratic  constitution  of  ancient  so- 
ciety meets  us  at  many  points,  which  fact  has  failed  to  find  its 
way  into  the  modern  historical  expositions  of  Grecian  and  Ro- 
man gentile  society. 

With  respect  to  the  number  of  persons  in  a  Roman  gens,  we 
are  fortunately  not  without  some  information.  About  474  B.  C. 
the  Fabian  gens  proposed  to  the  senate  to  undertake  the  Veien- 
tian  war  as  a  gens,  which  they  said  required  a  constant  rather 
than  a  large  force.  ^  Their  offer  was  accepted,  and  they  march- 
ed out  of  Rome  three  hundred  and  six  soldiers,  all  patricians, 
amid  the  applause  of  their  countrymen.^  After  a  series  of 
successes  they  were  finally  cut  off  to  a  man  through  an  am- 
buscade. But  they  left  behind  them  at  Rome  a  single  male 
under  the  age  of  puberty,  who  alone  remained  to  perpetuate 
the  Fabian  gens.^  It  seems  hardly  credible  that  three  hundred 
should  have  left  in  their  families  but  a  single  male  child,  below 
the  age  of  puberty,  but  such  is  the  statement.  This  number 
of  persons  would  indicate  an  equal  number  of  females,  who, 
with  the  children  of  the  males,  would  give  an  aggregate  of  at 
least  seven  hundred  members  of  the  Fabian  gens. 

Although  the  rights,  obligations  and  functions  of  the  Roman 
gens  have  been  inadequately  presented,  enough  has  been  ad- 
duced to  show  that  this  organization  was  the  source  of  their 
social,  governmental  and  rehgious  activities.  As  the  unit  of 
their  social  system  it  projects  its  character  upon  the  higher  or- 
ganizations into  which  it  entered  as  a  constituent.  A  much 
fuller  knowledge  of  the  Roman  gens  than  we  now  possess  is 
essential  to  a  full  comprehension  of  Roman  institutions  in  their 
origin  and  development. 

1  Livy,  ii,  48.  2  /^_^  j;^  ^g_ 

3  Trecentos  sex  perisse  satis  convenit :  unum  prope  pubescem  aetate  relictum 
stirpem  gente  Fabiae,  dubiisque  rebus  populi  Romani  sepe  domi  bellique  vel  maxi- 
mum futurum  auxilium. — -Livy,  ii,  50;  and  see  Ovid,  Fasti,  ii,  193. 


CHAPTER  XIL 

THE   ROMAN   CURIA,    TRIBE   AND   POPULUS. 

Roman  Gentile  Society. — Four  Stages  of  Organization — i.  The  Gens; 
2.  The  Curia,  consisting  of  Ten  Gentes;  3.  The  Tribe,  composed  of  Ten 
CuRi^;  4.  The  Populus  Romanus,  composed  of  Three  Tribes. — Numer- 
ical Proportions — How  Produced. — Concentration  of  Gentes  at  Rome. 
— The  Roman  Senate. — Its  Functions. — The  Assembly  of  the  People. — 
Its  Powers. — The  People  Sovereign. — Office  of  Military  Commander 
(Rex). — Its  Powers  and  Functions. — Roman  Gentile  Institutions  essen- 
tially Democratical. 

Having  considered  the  Roman  gens,  it  remains  to  take  up 
the  curia  composed  of  several  gentes,  the  tribe  composed  of 
several  curiae,  and  lastly  the  Roman  people  composed  of  sev- 
eral tribes.  In  pursuing  the  subject  the  inquiry  will  be  limited 
to  the  constitution  of  society  as  it  appeared  from  the  time  of 
Romulus  to  that  of  Servius  Tullius,  with  some  notice  of  the 
changes  which  occurred  in  the  early  period  of  the  republic 
while  the  gentile  system  was  giving  way,  and  the  new  political 
system  was  being  established. 

It  will  be  found  that  two  governmental  organizations  were  in 
existence  for  a  time,  side  by  side,  as  among  the  Athenians,  one 
going  out  and  the  other  coming  in.  The  first  was  a  society 
(societas),  founded  upon  the  gentes;  and  the  other  a  state 
(civitas),  founded  upon  territory  and  upon  property,  which 
was  gradually  supplanting  the  former.  A  government  in  a 
transitional  stage  is  necessarily  complicated,  and  therefore  diffi- 
cult to  be  understood.  These  changes  were  not  violent  but 
gradual,  commencing  with  Romulus  and  substantially  complet- 


THE  ROMAN  CURIA,   TRIBE  AND  POPULUS.        301 

ed,  though  not  perfected,  by  Servius  TulHus;  thus  embracing  a 
supposed  period  of  nearly  two  hundred  years,  crowded  with 
events  of  great  moment  to  the  infant  commonwealth.  In  order 
to  follow  the  history  of  the  gentes  to  the  overthrow  of  their 
influence  in  the  state  it  will  be  necessary,  after  considering  the 
curia,  tribe  and  nation,  to  explain  briefly  the  new  political  sys- 
tem.    The  last  will  form  the  subject  of  the  ensuing  chapter. 

Gentile  society  among  the  Romans  exhibits  four  stages  of 
organization :  first,  the  gens,  which  was  a  body  of  consanguine! 
and  the  unit  of  the  social  system;  second,  the  curia,  analogous 
to  the  Grecian  phratry,  which  consisted  of  ten  gentes  united  in 
a  higher  corporate  body;  third,  the  tribe,  consisting  of  ten 
curiae,  which  possessed  some  of  the  attributes  of  a  nation  under 
gentile  institutions;  and  fourth,  the  Roman  people  ( Popnbis 
Romamis),  consisting,  in  the  time  of  Tullus  Hostilius,  of  three 
such  tribes  united  by  coalescence  in  one  gentile  society,  embrac- 
ing three  hundred  gentes.  There  are  facts  warranting  the  con- 
clusion that  all  the  Italian  tribes  were  similarly  organized  at  the 
commencement  of  the  historical  period;  but  with  this  differ- 
ence, perhaps,  that  the  Roman  curia  was  a  more  advanced  or- 
ganization than  the  Grecian  phratry,  or  the  corresponding 
phratry  of  the  remaining  Italian  tribes;  and  that  the  Roman 
tribe,  by  constrained  enlargement,,  became  a  more  comprehen- 
sive organization  than  in  the  remaining  Italian  stocks.  Some 
evidence  in  support  of  these  statements  will  appear  in  the  se- 
quel. 

Before  the  time  of  Romulus  the  Italians,  in  their  various 
branches,  had  become  a  numerous  people.  The  large  number 
of  petty  tribes,  into  which  they  had  become  subdivided,  reveals 
that  state  of  unavoidable  disintegration  which  accompanies 
gentile  institutions.  But  the  federal  principle  had  asserted  it- 
self among  the  other  Italian  tribes  as  well  as  the  Latin,  although 
it  did  not  result  in  any  confederacy  that  achieved  important  re- 
sults. Whilst  this  state  of  things  existed,  that  great  movement 
ascribed  to  Romulus  occurred,  namely:  the  concentration  of  a 
hundred  Latin  gentes  on  the  banks  of  the  Tiber,  which  was  fol- 
lowed by  a  like  gathering  of  Sabine,  Latin  and  Etruscan  and 
other  gentes,  to  the  additional  number  of  two  hundred,  ending 


302  ANCIENT  SOCIETY. 

in  their  final  coalescence  into  one  people.  The  foundations  of 
Rome  were  thus  laid,  and  Roman  power  and  civilization  were 
to  follow.  It  was  this  consolidation  of  gentes  and  tribes  under 
one  government,  commenced  by  Romulus  and  completed  by 
his  successors,  that  prepared  the  way  for  the  new  political  sys- 
tem— for  the  transition  from  a  government  based  upon  persons 
and  upon  personal  relations,  into  one  based  upon  territory  and 
upon  property. 

It  is  immaterial  whether  either  of  the  seven  so-called  kings 
of  Rome  were  real  or  mythical  persons,  or  w^hether  the  legisla- 
tion ascribed  to  either  of  them  is  fabulous  or  true,  so  far  as  this 
investigation  is  concerned:  because  the  facts  with  respect  to 
the  ancient  constitution  of  Latin  society  remained  incorporated 
in  Roman  institutions,  and  thus  came  down  to  the  historical 
period.  It  fortunately  so  happens  that  the  events  of  human 
progress  embody  themselves,  independently  of  particular  men, 
in  a  material  record,  which  is  crystallized  in  institutions,  usages 
and  customs,  and  preserved  in  inventions  and  discoveries. 
Historians,  from  a  sort  of  necessity,  give  to  individuals  great 
prominence  in  the  production  of  events;  thus  placing  persons, 
who  are  transient,  in  the  place  of  principles,  which  are  endur- 
ing. The  work  of  society  in  its  totality,  by  means  of  which  all 
progress  occurs,  is  ascribed  far  too  much  to  individual  men, 
and  far  too  little  to  the  public  intelligence.  It  will  be  recog- 
nized generally  that  the  substance  of  human  history  is  bound 
up  in  the  growth  of  ideas,  which  are  wrought  out  by  the  peo- 
ple and  expressed  in  their  institutions,  usages,  inventions  and 
discoveries. 

The  numerical  adjustment,  before  adverted  to,  of  ten  gentes 
to  a  curia,  ten  curiae  to  a  tribe,  and  three  tribes  of  the  Roman 
people,  was  a  result  of  legislative  procurement  not  older,  in  the 
first  two  tribes,  than  the  time  of  Romulus.  It  was  made  possi- 
ble by  the  accessions  gained  from  the  surrounding  tribes,  by 
solicitation  or  conquest;  the  fruits  of  which  were  chiefly  incor- 
porated in  the  Titics  and  Luceres,  as  they  were  successively 
formed.  But  such  a  precise  numerical  adjustment  could  not  be 
permanently  maintained  through  centuries,  especially  with  re- 
spect to  the  number  of  gentes  in  each  curia. 


THE  ROMAN  CURIA,   TRIBE  AND  POPULUS.        303 

We  have  seen  that  the  Grecian  phratiy  was  rather  a  religious 
and  social  than  a  governmental  organization.  Holding  an  in- 
termediate position  between  the  gens  and  the  tribe,  it  would  be 
less  important  than  either,  until  governmental  functions  were 
superadded.  It  appears  among  the  Iroquois  in  a  rudimentary 
form,  its  social  as  distinguished  from  its  governmental  character 
being  at  that  early  day  equally  well  marked.  But  the  Roman 
curia,  whatever  it  may  have  been  in  the  previous  period,  grew 
into  an  organization  more  integral  and  governmental  than  the 
phratry  of  the  Greeks;  more  is  known,  however,  of  the  former 
than  of  the  latter.  It  is  probable  that  the  gentes  comprised  in 
each  curia  were,  in  the  main,  related  gentes;  and  that  their  re- 
union in  a  higher  organization  was  further  cemented  by  inter- 
marriages, the  gentes  of  the  same  curia  furnishing  each  other 
with  wives. 

The  early  writers  give  no  account  of  the  institution  of  the 
curia;  but  it  does  not  follow  that  it  was  a  new  creation  by 
Romulus.  It  is  first  mentioned  as  a  Roman  institution  in  con- 
nection with  his  legislation,  the  number  of  curiae  in  two  of  the 
tribes  having  been  established  in  his  time.  The  organiza- 
tion, as  a  phratry,  had  probably  existed  among  the  Latin 
tribes  from  time  immemorial. 

Livy,  speaking  of  the  favor  with  which  the  Sabine  women 
were  regarded  after  the  establishment  of  peace  between  the 
Sabines  and  Latins  through  their  intervention,  remarks  that 
Romulus,  for  this  reason,  when  he  had  divided  the  people  into 
thirty  curiae  bestowed  upon  them  their  names.^  Dionysius  uses 
the  term  phratry  as  the  equivalent  of  curia,  but  gives  the  latter 
also  {Houpia),'  and  observes  further,  that  Romulus  divided  the 
curiae  into  decades,  the  ten  in  each  being  of  course  gentes.^ 
In  like  manner  Plutarch  refers  to  the  fact  that  each  tribe  con- 
tained ten  curiae,  which  some  say,  he  remarks,  were  called  after 

'  Itaque,  quum  populum  in  curias  triginta  divideret,  nomina  earum  curiis  im- 
posuit. — Livy,  i,  13. 

*  q>pd.Tpa  Sk  xai  Xoxo'i  r)  Jiovpia. — Dionys.,  Antiq.  of  Rome,  ii,  7. 

'  Siypi;ivTo  Ss  xai  sii  SsHocda?  at  q^parpoci  Ttpo?  ccvtov,  xai  ijye/iiGov 
ixddrrfv  exod/tisi  SsxdSapxoZ  xard  T7]v  kittxoipiov  yXoorrav  itpo- 
6ayopEv6nevoi. — Dionys.,  ii,  7. 


304 


ANCIENT  SOCIETY. 


the  Sabine  women. ^  He  is  more  accurate  in  the  use  of  lan- 
guage than  Livy  or  Dionysius  in  saying  that  each  tribe  con- 
tained ten  curiae,  rather  than  that  each  was  divided  into  ten,  be- 
cause the  curiae  were  made  of  gentes  as  original  unities,  and  not 
the  gentes  out  of  a  curia  by  subdivision.  The  work  performed 
by  Romulus  was  the  adjustment  of  the  number  of  gentes  in 
each  curia,  and  the  number  of  curiae  in  each  tribe,  which  he 
was  enabled  to  accomplish  through  the  accessions  gained  from 
the  surrounding  tribes.  Theoretically  each  curia  should  have 
been  composed  of  gentes  derived  by  segmentation  from  one  or 
more  gentes,  and  the  tribe  by  natural  growth  through  the  for- 
mation of  more  than  one  curia,  each  composed  of  gentes 
united  by  the  bond  of  a  common  dialect.  The  hundred  gentes 
of  the  Ramnes  were  Latin  gentes.  In  their  organization  into 
ten  curiae,  each  composed  often  gentes,  Romulus  undoubtedly 
respected  the  bond  of  kin  by  placing  related  gentes  in  the 
same  curia,  as  far  as  possible,  and  then  reached  numerical 
symmetry  by  arbitrarily  taking  the  excess  of  gentes  from 
one  natural  curia  to  supply  the  deficiency  in  another.  The 
hundred  gentes  of  the  tribe  Titles  were,  in  the  main,  Sabine 
gentes.  These  were  also  arranged  in  ten  curiae,  and  most  likely 
on  the  same  principle.  The  third  tribe,  the  Luceres,  was 
formed  later  from  gradual  accessions  and  conquests.  It  was 
heterogeneous  in  its  elements,  containing,  among  others,  a 
number  of  Etruscan  gentes.  They  were  brought  into  the  same 
numerical  scale  of  ten  curiae  each  composed  of  ten  gentes. 
Under  this  re-constitution,  while  the  gens,  the  unit  of  organiza- 
tion, remained  pure  and  unchanged,  the  curia  was  raised  above 
its  logical  level,  and  made  to  include,  in  some  cases,  a  foreign 
element  which  did  not  belong  to  a  strict  natural  phratry;  and 
the  tribe  also  was  raised  above  its  natural  level,  and  made  to 
embrace  foreign  elements  that  did  not  belong  to  a  tribe  as  the 
tribe  naturally  grew.  By  this  legislative  constraint  the  tribes, 
with  their  curiae  and  gentes,  were  made  severally  equal,  while 
the  third  tribe  was  in  good  part  an  artificial  creation  under  the 

'  'Ena'drT/  Se  (pvX?)  Sena  q>paTpia'i  ezxev,  oci  evioi 
XiyovGiv  tTtovvjuovS  eivai  tusivoov  t(Sv  yvvaixwv. 

— Plutarch,   ViL  Romulus,  cap.  20. 


THE  ROMAN  CURIA,   TRIBE  AND  POPULUS.        305 

pressure  of  circumstances.  The  linguistic  affiliations  of  the 
Etruscans  are  still  a  matter  of  discussion.  There  is  a  presump- 
tion that  their  dialect  was  not  wholly  unintelligible  to  the  Latin 
tribes,  otherwise  they  would  not  have  been  admitted  into  the 
Roman  social  system,  which  at  the  time  was  purely  gentile. 
The  numerical  proportions  thus  secured,  facilitated  the  govern- 
mental action  of  the  society  as  a  whole. 

Niebuhr,  who  was  the  first  to  gain  a  true  conception  of  the  in- 
stitutions of  the  Romans  in  this  period,  who    recognized  the 
fact  that  the  people  were  sovereign,  that  the  so-called  kings  ex- 
ercised a  delegated  power,  and  that  the  senate  was  based  on  the 
principle  of  representation,  each  gens  having  a  senator,  became 
at  variance  with  the  facts  before  him  in  stating  in  connection 
with  this  graduated  scale,  that  "such  numerical  proportions  are 
an  irrefragible  proof  that  the  Roman  houses  [gentes]^  were  not 
more  ancient  than  the  constitution;  but  corporations  formed  by 
a  legislator  in  harmony  with  the  rest  of  his  scheme."^     That  a 
small  foreign  element  was  forced  into  the  curiae  of  the  second 
and  third  tribes,  and  particularly  into  the  third,  is  undeniable; 
but  that  a  gens  was  changed  in  its  composition  or  reconstructed 
or  made,  was  simply  impossible.      A  legislator  could  not  make 
a  gens;   neither  could  he  make  a  curia,  except  by  combining 
existing    gentes  around    a    nucleus  of  related  gentes;   but  he 
might  increase  or  decrease  by  constraint  the  number  of  gentes  in 
a  curia,  and  increase  or  decrease  the  number  of  curiae  in  a  tribe. 
Niebuhr  has  also  shown  that  the  gens  was  an  ancient  and  uni- 
versal organization  among  the  Greeks  and  Romans,  which  ren- 
ders   his    preceding    declaration    the   more    incomprehensible. 
Moreover  it  appears  that  the  phratry  was  universal,  at  least 
among  the  Ionian  Greeks,  leaving  it  probable  that  the  curia, 
perhaps  under  another  name,  was  equally  ancient  among  the 
Latin  tribes.     The  numerical  proportions  referred  to  were  no 
doubt   the   result  of   legislative   procurement  in   the  time   of 
Romulus,  and  we  have  abundant  evidence  of  the  sources  from 

•  Whether  Niebuhr  used  the  word  "house"  in  the  place  of  gens,  or  it  is  a  con- 
ceit of  the  translators,  I  am  unable  to  state.  Thirlwall,  one  of  the  translators, 
applies  this  term  frequently  to  the  Grecian  gens,  which  at  best  is  objectionable. 

•  History  of  Rome,  i,  244. 

20 


3o6  ANCIENT  SOCIETY. 

which  the  new  gentes  were  obtained  with  which  these  propor- 
tions might  have  been  produced. 

The  members  of  the  ten  gentes  united  in  a  curia  were  called 
ciirialcs  among  themselves.  They  elected  a  priest,  curio,  who 
was  the  chief  officer  of  the  fraternity.  Each  curia  had  its  sa- 
cred rites,  in  the  observance  of  which  the  brotherhood  partici- 
pated; its  saccUum  as  a  place  of  worship,  and  its  place  of  as- 
sembly where  they  met  for  the  transaction  of  business.  Be- 
sides the  curio,  who  had  the  principal  charge  of  their  religious 
affairs,  the  ciirialcs  also  elected  an  assistant  priest,  flaincn  ciiri- 
alis,  who  had  the  immediate  charge  of  these  observances. 
The  curia  gave  its  name  to  the  assembly  of  the  gentes,  the 
comitia  curiata  which  was  the  sovereign  power  in  Rome  to  a 
greater  degree  than  the  senate  under  the  gentile  system. 
Such,  in  general  terms,  was  the  organization  of  the  Roman  curia 
or  phratry.^ 

Next  in  the  ascending  scale  was  the  Roman  tribe,  composed 
of  ten  curiae  and  a  hundred  gentes.  When  a  natural  growth, 
uninfluenced  externally,  a  tribe  would  be  an  aggregation  of 
such  gentes  as  were  derived  by  segmentation  from  an  original 
gens  or  pair  of  gentes;   all  the  members  of  which  would  speak 

1  Dionysius  has  given  a  definite  and  circumstantial  analysis  of  the  organization 
ascribed  to  Romulus,  although  a  portion  of  it  seems  to  belong  to  a  later  period. 
It  is  interesting  from  the  parallel  he  runs  between  the  gentile  institutions  of  the 
Greeks,  with  which  he  was  equally  familiar,  and  those  of  the  Romans.  In  the 
first  place,  he  remarks,  I  will  speak  of  the  order  of  his  polity  which  I  consider 
the  most  sufficient  of  all  political  arrangements  in  peace,  and  also  in  time  of  war. 
It  was  as  follows :  After  dividing  the  whole  multitude  into  three  divisions,  he 
appointed  the  most  prominent  man  as  a  leader  over  each  of  the  divisions ;  in  the 
next  place  dividing  each  of  the  three  again  into  ten,  he  appointed  the  bravest  men 
leaders,  having  equal  rank ;  and  he  called  the  greater  divisions  tribes,  and  the  less 
curiae,  as  they  are  also  still  called  according  to  usage.  And  these  names  inter- 
preted in  the  Greek  tongue  would  be  the  tribiis,  a  third  part,  a  phyle  {q)v][a}) ;  the 
curia,  a  phratry  {cpparpa),  and  also  a  band  (Ao'jo?);  and  those  men  who  exer- 
cised the  leadership  of  the  tribes  were  both  phylarchs  (cpvXapxoi)  and  trittyarchs 
(rptrrvapxoi),  whom  the  Romans  call  tribunes;  and  those  who  had  the  com- 
mand of  the  curiee  both  phratriarchs  {(ppar piapxoi)  and  lochagoi  {Xoxocy oi), 
whom  they  call  curiones.  And  the  phratries  were  also  divided  into  decades,  and 
a  leader  called  in  common  parlance  a  decadarch  {SsxdSapxoi)  had  command 
of  each.  And  when  all  had  been  arranged  into  tribes  and  phratries,  he  divided 
the  land  into  thirty  equal  shares,  and  gave  one  full  share  to  each  phratry,  selecting 
a  sufficient  portion  for  religious  festivals  and  temples,  and  leaving  a  certain  piece 
of  ground  for  common  use. — Antiq.  of  Rome,  ii,  7. 


THE  ROMAN  CURIA,   TRIBE  AND  POPULUS.        307 

the  same  dialect.  Until  the  tribe  itself  divided,  by  processes 
before  pointed  out,  it  would  include  all  the  descendants  of  the 
members  of  these  gentes.  But  the  Roman  tribe,  with  which 
alone  we  are  now  concerned,  was  artificially  enlarged  for  special 
objects  and  by  special  means,  but  the  basis  and  body  of  the 
tribe  was  a  natural  growth. 

Prior  to  the  time  of  Romulus  each  tribe  elected  a  chief  officer 
whose  duties  were  magisterial,  military  and  religious.^  He  per- 
formed in  the  city  magisterial  duties  for  the  tribe,  as  well  as 
administered  its  sacra,  and  he  also  commanded  its  military 
forces  in  the  field.^  He  was  probably  elected  by  the  curiae 
collected  in  a  general  assembly;  but  here  again  our  information 
is  defective.  It  was  undoubtedly  an  ancient  office  in  each  Latin 
tribe,  peculiar  in  character  and  held  by  an  elective  tenure.  It 
was  also  the  germ  of  the  still  higher  office  of  rex,  or  general 
military  commander,  the  functions  of  the  two  offices  being 
similar.  The  tribal  chiefs  are  styled  by  Dionysius  leaders  of 
the  tribes  {tpiftwv  r)yBixoviaz)?  When  the  three  Roman  tribes 
had  coalesced  into  one  people,  under  one  senate,  one  assembly 
of  the  people,  and  one  military  commander,  the  office  of  tribal 
chief  was  overshadowed  and  became  less  important;  but  the 
continued  maintenance  of  the  office  by  an  elective  tenure  con- 
firms the  inference  of  its  original  popular  character. 

An  assembly  of  the  tribe  must  also  have  existed,  from 
a  remote  antiquity.  Before  the  founding  of  Rome  each 
Italian  tribe  was  practically  independent,  although  the  tribes 
were  more  or  less  united  in  confederate  relations.  As  a 
self-governing  body  each  of  these  ancient  tribes  had  its  council 
of  chiefs  (who  were  doubtless  the  chiefs  of  the  gentes)  its  as- 
sembly of  the  people,  and  its  chiefs  who  commanded  its  mil- 
itary bands.  These  three  elements  in  the  organization  of  the 
tribe ;  namely,  the  council,  the  tribal  chief,  and  the  tribal  as- 
sembly, were  the  types  upon  which  were  afterwards  modeled 
the  Roman  senate,  the  Roman  rex,  and  the  comitia  ctiriata. 
The   tribal   chief  was   in  all   probability  called   by  the   name 

1  Dionyshts,  ii,  7- 

^  Smith's  Die,  I.  c.  Art.  Tributte. 

'  Dionysms,  ii,  7- 


308 


ANCIENT  SOCIETY, 


of  rex  before  the  founding  of  Rome ;  and  the  same  remark  is 
appHcable  to  the  name  of  senators  (scjicx),  and  the  coniitia 
(con-ire).  The  inference  arises,  from  what  is  known  of  the 
condition  and  organization  of  these  tribes,  that  their  institutions 
were  essentially  democratical.  After  the  coalescence  of  the 
three  Roman  tribes,  the  national  character  of  the  tribe  was  lost 
in  the  higher  organization;  but  it  still  remained  as  a  necessary 
integer  in  the  organic  series. 

The  fourth  and  last  stage  of  organization  was  the  Roman  na- 
tion or  people,  formed,  as  stated,  by  the  coalescence  of  three 
tribes.  Externally  the  ultimate  organization  was  manifested  by 
a  senate  {senatns),  a  popular  assembly  {comitia  curiata),  and  a 
general  military  commander  [rex).  It  was  further  manifested 
by  a  city  magistracy,  by  an  army  organization,  and  by  a  com- 
mon national  priesthood  of  different  orders.^ 

A  powerful  city  organization  was  from  the  first  the  central 
idea  of  their  governmental  and  military  systems,  to  which  all 
areas  beyond  Rome  remained  provincial.  Under  the  military 
democracy  of  Romulus,  under  the  mixed  democratical  and  ar- 
istocratical  organization  of  the  republic,  and  under  the  later  im- 
perialism it  was  a  government  with  a  great  city  in  its  centre,  a 
perpetual  nucleus,  to  which  all  additions  by  conquest  were 
added  as  increments,  instead  of  being  made,  with  the  city,  com- 
mon constituents  of  the  government.  Nothing  precisely  like 
this  Roman  organization,  this  Roman  power,  and  the  career  of 
the  Roman  race,  has  appeared  in  the  experience  of  mankind. 
It  will  ever  remain  the  marvel  of  the  ages. 

As  organized  by  Romulus  they  styled  themselves  the  Roman 
People  {Populiis  Romamis),  which  was  perfectly  exact.  They 
had  formed  a  gentile  society  and  nothing  more.  But  the  rapid 
increase  of  numbers  in  the  time  of  Romulus,  and  the  still 
greater  increase  between  this  period  and  that  of  Servius  Tul- 
lius,  demonstrated  the  necessity  for  a  fundamental  change  in 

*  The  thirty  curiones,  as  a  body,  were  organized  into  a  college  of  priests,  one 
of  their  number  holding  the  office  of  cjtrio  maximns.  He  was  elected  by  the 
assembly  of  the  gentes.  Besides  this  was  the  college  of  augurs,  consisting  under 
the  Ogulnian  law  (300  B.  C. )  of  nine  members,  including  their  chief  officer  {7iiagis- 
ter  collegii) ;  and  the  college  of  pontiffs,  composed  under  the  same  law  of  nine 
members,  including  the  pontifex  tiiaximus. 


THE  ROMAN  CURIA,   TRIBE  AND  POPULUS.        309 

the  plan  of  government.  Romulus  and  the  wise  men  of  his 
time  had  made  the  most  of  gentile  institutions.  We  are  in- 
debted to  his  legislation  for  a  grand  attempt  to  establish  upon 
the  gentes  a  great  national  and  military  power;  and  thus  for 
some  knowledge  of  the  character  and  structure  of  institutions 
which  might  otherwise  have  faded  into  obscurity,  if  they  had 
not  perished  from  remembrance.  The  rise  of  the  Roman  power 
upon  gentile  institutions  was  a  remarkable  event  in  human  ex- 
perience. It  is  not  singular  that  the  incidents  that  accompanied 
the  movement  should  have  come  to  us  tinctured  with  ro- 
mance, not  to  say  enshrouded  in  fable.  Rome  came  into  ex- 
istence through  a  happy  conception,  ascribed  to  Romulus,  and 
adopted  by  his  successors,  of  concentrating  the  largest  possible 
number  of  gentes  in  a  new  city,  under  one  government,  and 
with  their  united  military  forces  under  one  commander.  Its 
objects  were  essentially  military,  to  gain  a  supremacy  in  Italy, 
and  it  is  not  surprising  that  the  organization  took  the  form  of 
a  military  democracy. 

Selecting  a  magnificent  situation  upon  the  Tiber,  where,  after 
leaving  the  mountain  range  it  had  entered  the  campagna,  Rom- 
ulus occupied  the  Palatine  Hill,  the  site  of  an  ancient  fortress, 
with  a  tribe  of  the  Latins  of  which  he  was  the  chief  Tradition 
derived  his  descent  from  the  chiefs  of  Alba,  which  is  a  matter  of 
secondary  importance.  The  new  settlement  grew  with  mar- 
velous rapidity,  if  the  statement  is  reliable  that  at  the  close  of 
his  life  the  military  forces  numbered  46,000  foot  and  1,000  horse, 
which  would  indicate  some  200,000  people  in  the  city  and  in 
the  surrounding  region  under  its  protection.  Livy  remarks 
that  it  ^yas  an  ancient  device  [vetus  consiliuni)  of  the  founders 
of  cities  to  draw  to  themselves  an  obscure  and  humble  multi- 
tude, and  then  set  up  for  their  progeny  the  autocthonic  claim.^ 
Romulus  pursuing  this  ancient  policy  is  said  to  have  opened  an 
asylum  near  the  Palatine,  and  to  have  invited  all  persons  in  the 
surrounding-  tribe,  without  regard  to  character  or  condition,  to 
share  with  his  tribes  the  advantages  and  the  destiny  of  the  new 
city.  A  great  crowd  of  people,  Livy  further  remarks,  fled  to 
this  place  from  the  surrounding  territories,  slave  as  well  as  free, 

'  Livy,  i,  8. 


3 1  o  ANCIEN T  SOCIE T  V. 

which  was  the  first  accession  of  foreign  strength  to  the  new  un- 
dertaking.^ Plutarch,^  and  Dionysius^  both  refer  to  the  asylum 
or  grove,  the  opening  of  which,  for  the  object  and  with  the  suc- 
cess named,  was  an  event  of  probable  occurrence.  It  tends  to 
show  that  the  people  of  Italy  had  then  become  numerous  for 
barbarians,  and  that  discontent  prevailed  among  them  in  conse- 
quence, doubtless,  of  the  imperfect  protection  of  personal  rights, 
the  existence  of  domestic  slavery,  and  the  apprehension  of  vio- 
lence. Of  such  a  state  of  things  a  wise  man  would  naturally 
avail  himself  if  he  possessed  sufficient  military  genius  to  handle 
the  class  of  men  thus  brought  together.  The  next  important 
event  in  this  romantic  narrative,  of  which  the  reader  should  be 
reminded,  was  the  assault  of  the  Sabines  to  avenge  the  entrap- 
ment of  the  Sabine  virgins,  now  the  honored  wives  of  their  cap- 
tors. It  resulted  in  a  wise  accommodation  under  which  the 
Latins  and  Sabines  coalesced  into  one  society,  but  each  division 
retaining  its  own  military  leader.  The  Sabines  occupied  the 
Quirinal  and  Capitoline  Hills.  Thus  was  added  the  principal 
part  of  the  second  tribe,  the  Titles,  under  Titius  Tatius  their 
military  chief  After  the  death  of  the  latter  they  all  fell  under 
the  military  command  of  Romulus. 

Passing  over  Numa  Pompilius,  the  successor  of  Romulus,  who 
established  upon  a  broader  scale  the  religious  institutions  of  the 
Romans,  his  successor,  Tullus  Hostilius,  captured  the  Latin  city 
of  Alba  and  removed  its  entire  population  to  Rome.  They  oc- 
cupied the  Coelian  Hill,  with  all  the  privileges  of  Roman  citizens. 
The  number  of  citizens  was  now  doubled,  Livy  remarks ;"*  but 
not  likely  from  this  source  exclusively.  Ancus  Martins,  the 
successor  of  Tullus,  captured  the  Latin  city  of  Politorium,  and 
following  the  established  policy,  transferred  the  people  bodily  to 
Rome.^  To  them  was  assigned  the  Aventine  Hill,  with  similar 
privileges.  Not  long  afterwards  the  inhabitants  of  Tellini  and 
Ficana  were  subdued  and  removed  to  Rome,  where  they  also 

'  Eo  ex  finiiimis  populis  turba  omnis  sine  discrimine,  liber  an  servus  asset,  avida 
novarum  reruni  perfuyit ;  idque  primum  ad  coeplam  magnitudinem  roboris  fuit. 
— Livy,  i,  8. 

*  Vii.  Romulus,  cap.  20. 

3  Antiq.  of  Rome,  ii,  15. 

<>  Livy,  i,  30.  6  lb.,  i,  33. 


THE  ROMAN  CURIA,   TRIBE  AND  POPULUS.        311 

occupied  the  Av^entine.^  It  will  be  noticed  that  in  each  case 
the  gentes  brought  to  Rome,  as  well  as  the  original  Latin  and 
Sabine  gentes,  remained  locally  distinct.  It  was  the  universal 
usage  in  gentile  society,  both  in  the  Middle  and  in  the  Upper 
Status  of  barbarism,  when  the  tribes  began  to  gather  in  for- 
tresses and  in  walled  cities,  for  the  gentes  to  settle  locally  to- 
gether by  gentes  and  by  phratries.^  Such  was  the  manner  the 
gentes  settled  at  Rome.  The  greater  portion  of  these  accessions 
were  united  in  the  third  tribe,  the  Luceres,  which  gave  it  a 
broad  basis  of  Latin  gentes.  It  was  not  entirely  filled  until  the 
time  of  Tarquinius  Prisons,  the  fourth  military  leader  from  Rom- 
ulus, some  of  the  new  gentes  being  Etruscan. 

By  these  and  other  means  three  hundred  gentes  were  gathered 
at  Rome  and  there  organized  in  curiae  and  tribes,  differing 
somewhat  in  tribal  lineage;  for  the  Ramnes,  as  before  remarked, 
were  Latins,  the  Titles  were  in  the  main  Sabines  and  the  Lu- 
ceres w^ere  probably  in  the  main  Latins  with  large  accessions 
from  other  sources.  The  Roman  people  and  organization  thus 
grew  into  being  by  a  more  or  less  constrained  aggregation  of  gen- 
tes into  curiae,  of  curiae  into  tribes,  and  of  tribes  into  one  gentile 
society.  But  a  model  for  each  integral  organization,  excepting 
the  last,  had  existed  arnong  them  and  their  ancestors  from  time 
immemorial;  with  a  natural  basis  for  each  curia  in  the  kindred 
gentes  actually  united  in  each,  and  a  similar  basis  for  each  tribe  in 
the  common  lineage  of  a  greater  part  of  the  gentes  united  in  each. 
All  that  was  new  in  organization  was  the  numerical  proportions 
of  gentes  to  a  curia,  of  curiae  to  a  tribe,  and  the  coalescence  of  the 
latter  into  one  people.  It  may  be  called  a  growth  under  legisla- 
tive constraint,  because  the  tribes  thus  formed  were  not  entirely 
free  from  the  admixture  of  foreign  elements;  whence  arose  the 
new  name  tribiis=d.  third  part  of  the  people,  which  now  came 
in  to  distinguish  this  organism.     The  Latin  language  must  have 

1  Livy,  i,  38. 

«  In  the  pueblo  houses  in  New  Mexico  all  the  occupants  of  each  house  belonged 
to  the  same  tribe,  and  in  some  cases  a  single  joint-tenement  house  contained 
a  tribe.  In  the  pueblo  of  Mexico  there  were  four  principal  quarters,  as  has  been 
shown,  each  occupied  by  a  lineage,  probably  a  phratry;  while  the  Tlatelulcos 
occupied  a  fifth  district.  At  Tlascala  there  were  also  four  quarters  occupied  by 
four  lineages,  probably  phratries. 


312 


ANCIENT  SOCIETY. 


had  a  term  equivalent  to  the  Greek  phylon  {ipvXov)  =  tribe, 
because  they  had  the  same  organization;  but  if  so  it  has  dis- 
appeared. The  invention  of  this  new  term  is  some  evidence 
that  the  Roman  tribes  contained  heterogeneous  elements,  while 
the  Grecian  were  pure,  and  kindred  in  the  lineage  of  the  gentes 
they  contained. 

Our  knowledge  of  the  previous  constitution  of  Latin  society 
is  mainly  derived  from  the  legislation  ascribed  to  Romulus, 
since  it  brings  into  view  the  anterior  organization  of  the  Latin 
tribes,  with  such  improvments  and  modifications  as  the  wisdom 
of  the  age  was  able  to  suggest.  It  is  seen  in  the  senate  as  a 
council  of  chiefs,  in  the  coviitia  curiata  as  an  assembly  of  the 
the  people  by  curiae,  in  the  office  of  a  general  military  com- 
mander, and  in  the  ascending  series  of  organizations.  It  is 
seen  more  especially  in  the  presence  of  the  gentes,  with  their 
recognized  rights,  privileges  and  obligations.  Moreover,  the 
government  instituted  by  Romulus  and  perfected  by  his  im- 
mediate successors  presents  gentile  society  in  the  highest 
structural  form  it  ever  attained  in  any  portion  of  the  human 
family.  The  time  referred  to  was  immediately  before  the  in- 
stitution of  political  society  by  Servius  Tullius. 

The  first  momentous  act  of  Romulus,  as  a  legislator,  was 
the  institution  of  the  Roman  senate.  It  was  composed  of  a 
hundred  members,  one  from  each  gens,  or  ten  from  each  curia. 
A  council  of  chiefs  as  the  primary  instrument  of  government 
was  not  a  new  thing  among  the  Latin  tribes.  From  time  im- 
memorial they  had  been  accustomed  to  its  existence  and  to  its 
authority.  But  it  is  probable  that  prior  to  the  time  of  Romu- 
lus it  had  become  changed,  like  the  Grecian  councils,  into  a 
pre-considering  body,  obligated  to  prepare  and  submit  to  an 
assembly  of  the  people  the  most  important  public  measures  for 
adoption  or  rejection.  This  was  in  effect  a  resumption  by 
the  people  of  powers  before  vested  in  the  council  of  chiefs. 
Since  no  public  measure  of  essential  importance  could  become 
operative  until  it  received  the  sanction  of  the  popular  assembly, 
this  fact  alone  shows  that  the  people  were  sovereign,  and  not 
the  council,  nor  the  military  commander.  It  reveals  also  the 
extent  to  which  democratic  principles  had  penetrated  their  so- 


THE  ROMAN  CURIA,   TRIBE  AND  POPULUS.        313 

clal  system.  The  senate  instituted  by  Romulus,  although  its 
functions  were  doubtless  substantially  similar  to  those  of  the 
previous  council  of  chiefs,  was  an  advance  upon  it  in  several 
respects.  It  was  made  up  either  of  the  chiefs  or  of  the  wise 
men  of  the  gentes.  Each  gens,  as  Niebuhr  remarks,  "sending 
its  decurion  who  was  its  alderman,"'  to  represent  it  in  the  sen- 
ate. It  was  thus  a  representative  and  an  elective  body  in  its 
inception,  and  it  remained  elective,  or  selective,  down  to  the 
empire.  The  senators  held  their  office  for  life,  which  was  the 
only  term  of  office  then  known  among  them,  and  therefore  not 
singular.  Livy  ascribes  the  selection  of  the  first  senators  to 
Romulus,  which  is  probably  an  erroneous  statement,  for  the  rea- 
son that  it  would  not  have  been  in  accordance  with  the  theory 
of  their  institutions.  Romulus  chose  a  hundred  senators,  he 
remarks,  either  because  that  number  was  sufficient,  or  because 
there  were  but  a  hundred  who  could  be  created  Fathers. 
Fathers  certainly  they  were  called  on  account  of  their  official 
dignity,  and  their  descendants  were  called  patricians.^  The 
character  of  the  senate  as  a  representative  body,  the  title  of 
Fathers  of  the  People  bestowed  upon  its  members,  the  life- 
tenure  of  the  office,  but,  more  than  all  these  considerations,  the 
distinction  of  patricians  conferred  upon  their  children  and  lineal 
descendants  in  perpetuity,  established  at  a  stroke  an  aristocracy 
of  rank  in  the  centre  of  their  social  system  where  it  became 
firmly  intrenched.  The  Roman  senate,  from  its  high  vocation, 
from  its  composition,  and  from  the  patrician  rank  received  by 
its  members  and  transmitted  to  their  descendants,  held  a  pow- 
erful position  in  the  subsequent  state.  It  was  this  aristocratic 
element,  now  for  the  first  time  planted  in  gentilism,  which  gave 
to  the  republic  its  mongrel  character,  and  which,  as  might  have 
been  predicted,  culminated  in  imperialism,  and  with  it  in  the 
final  dissolution  of  the  race.  It  may  perhaps  have  increased 
the  military  glory  and  extended  the  conquests  of  Rome,  whose 
institutions,  from  the  first,  aimed  at  a  military  destiny;   but  it 

'  History  of  Rome,  i,  258. 

2  Centum  creat  senatores  :  sive  quia  is  numerus  satis  erat ;  sive  quia  soli  centum 
erant,  qui  creari  Patres  possent,  Patres  certe  ab  honore,  patriciique  progenies 
eorum  appellati. — Liv.,  \,  8.  And  Cicero:  Principes,  qui  appellati  sunt  propter 
caritatem,  patres. — Dc  Rep.,  ii,  8. 


3 1 4  ANCIENT  SOCIE  T  V. 

shortened  the  career  of  this  great  and  extraordinary  people,  and 
demonstrated  the  proposition  that  imperiahsm  of  necessity  will 
destroy  any  civilized  race.  Under  the  republic,  half  aristo- 
cratic, half  democratic,  the  Romans  achieved  their  fame,  which 
one  can  but  think  would  have  been  higher  in  degree,  and  more 
lasting  in  its  fruits,  had  liberty  and  equality  been  nationalized, 
instead  of  unequal  privileges  and  an  atrocious  slavery.  The 
long  protracted  struggle  of  the  plebeians  to  eradicate  the  aris- 
tocratic element  represented  by  the  senate,  and  to  recover  the 
ancient  principles  of  democracy,  must  be  classed  among  the 
heroic  labors  of  mankind. 

After  the  union  of  the  Sabines  the  senate  was  increased  to 
two  hundred  by  the  addition  of  a  hundred  senators^  from  the 
gentes  of  the  tribe  Titles;  and  when  the  Luceres  had  increased 
to  a  hundred  gentes  in  the  time  of  Tarquinius  Priscus,  a  third 
hundred  senators  were  added  from  the  gentes  of  this  tribe.^  Cic- 
ero has  left  some  doubt  upon  this  statement  of  Livy,  by  saying 
that  Tarquinius  Priscus  doubled  the  original  number  of  the 
senators.'  But  Schmitz  well  suggests,  as  an  explanation  of  the 
discrepancy,  that  at  the  time  of  the  final  increase  the  senate 
may  have  become  reduced  to  a  hundred  and  fifty  members,  and 
been  filled  up  to  two  hundred  from  the  gentes  of  the  first  two 
tribes,  when  the  hundred  were  added  from  the  third.  The  sen- 
ators taken  from  the  tribes  Ramnes  and  Titles  were  thenceforth 
called  Fathers  of  the  Greater  Gentes  i^patres  maioriim  gentium), 
and  those  of  the  Luceres  Fathers  of  the  Lesser  Gentes  {patres 
viinornm  gentiuvi).^  From  the  form  of  the  statement  the  infer- 
ence arises  that  the  three  hundred  senators  represented  the  three 
hundred  gentes,  each  senator  representing  a  gens.  Moreover,  as 
each  gens  doubtless  had  its  principal  chief  [priuaps),  it  becomes 
extremely  probable  that  this  person  was  chosen  for  the  position 

'  Dionyshis,  ii,  47. 

2  Nee  minus  regni  sui  firmancll,  quam  augendae  republicae,  memor,  centum  in 
Patres  legit ;  qui  deinde  minorum  gentium  sunt  apjDellati :  factio  baud  dubia  regis, 
cuius  beneficio  in  curiam  venerant. — Liv.,  i,  35. 

3  Isque  [Tarquinius]  ut  de  suo  imperio  legem  tulit,  principio  duplicavit  ilium 
pristinum  patrum  numerum ;  et  antiques  patres  maiorum  gentium  appellavit,  quos 
oriores  sententiam  rogabat;  a  se  adscitos,  minorum. — Cicero,  De  Rep.,  ii,  20. 

*  Cicero,  Dc  Jiep.,\\,  20. 


THE  ROMAN  CURIA,   TRIBE  AND  POPULUS.        315 

either  by  his  gens,  or  the  ten  were  chosen  together  by  the  cu- 
ria, from  the  ten  gentes  of  which  it  was  composed.  Such  a 
method  of  representation  and  of  choice  is  most  in  accordance 
with  what  is  known  of  Roman  and  gentile  institutions.'  After 
the  estabhshment  of  the  repubhc,  the  censors  filled  the  vacan- 
cies in  the  senate  by  their  own  choice,  until  it  was  devolved 
upon  the  consuls.  They  were  generally  selected  from  the  ex- 
magistrates  of  the  higher  grades. 

The  powers  of  the  senate  were  real  and  substantial.  All 
public  measures  originated  in  this  body — those  upon  which  they 
could  act  independently,  as  well  as  those  which  must  be  sub- 
mitted to  the  popular  assembly  and  be  adopted  before  they 
could  become  operative.  It  had  the  general  guardianship  of 
the  public  welfare,  the  management  of  their  foreign  relations, 
the  levying  of  taxes  and  of  military  forces,  and  the  general 
control  of  revenues  and  expenditures.  Although  the  adminis- 
tration of  religious  affairs  belonged  to  the  several  colleges  of 
priests,  the  senate  had  the  ultimate  power  over  religion  as  well. 
From  its  functions  and  vocation  it  was  the  most  influential  body 
which  ever  existed  under  gentile  institutions. 

The  assembly  of  the  people,  with  the  recognized  right  of 
acting  upon  important  public  measures  to  be  discussed  by  them 
and  adopted  or  rejected,  was  unknown  in  the  Lower,  and  prob- 
ably in  the  Middle  Status  of  barbarism;  but  it  existed  in  the 
Upper  Status,  in  the  agora  of  the  Grecian  tribes,  and  attained 

1  This  was  substantially  the  opinion  of  Niebuhr.  "We  may  go  further  and 
affirm  without  hesitation,  that  originally,  when  the  number  of  houses  [gentes]  was 
complete,  they  were  represented  immediately  by  the  senate,  the  number  of  which 
was  proportionate  to  theirs.  The  three  hundred  senators  answered  to  the  three 
hundred  houses,  which  was  assumed  above  on  good  grounds  to  be  the  number  of 
them ;  each  gens  sent  its  decurion,  who  was  its  alderman  and  the  president  of  its 
meetings  to  represent  it  in  the  senate.  .  .  .  That  the  senate  should  be  appointed 
by  the  kings  at  their  discretion,  can  never  have  been  the  original  institution. 
Even  Dionysius  supposes  that  there  was  an  election  :  his  notion  of  it,  however,  is 
quite  untenable,  and  the  deputies  must  have  been  chosen,  at  least  originally,  by 
the  houses  and  not  by  the  curiae." — Hist,  of  Rome,  i,  258.  An  election  by  the 
curise  is,  in  principle,  most  probable,  if  the  office  did  not  fall  to  the  chief  ex  officio, 
because  the  gentes  in  a  curia  had  a  direct  interest  in  the  representation  of  each 
gens.-  It  was  for  the  same  reason  that  a  sachem  elected  by  the  members  of  an 
Iroquois  gens  must  be  accepted  by  the  other  gentes  of  the  same  tribe  before  his 
nomination  was  complete. 


3i6 


ANCIENT  SOCIETY. 


its  highest  form  in  the  ecclesia  of  the  Athenians ;  and  it  also 
existed  in  the  assembly  of  the  warriors  among  the  Latin  tribes, 
attaining  its  highest  form  in  the  comitia  ciiriata  of  the  Romans. 
The  growth  of  property  tended  to  the  establishment  of  the 
popular  assembly,  as  a  third  power  in  gentile  society,  for  the 
protection  of  personal  rights  and  as  a  shield  against  the  en- 
croachments of  the  council  of  chiefs,  and  of  the  military  com- 
mander. From  the  period  of  savagery,  after  the  institution  of 
the  gentes,  down  to  the  times  of  Solon  and  Romulus,  the  pop- 
ular element  had  always  been  active  in  ancient  gentile  society. 
The  council  of  chiefs  was  usually  open  in  the  early  conditions 
to  the  orators  of  the  people,  and  public  sentiment  influenced 
the  course  of  events.  But  when  the  Grecian  and  Latin  tribes 
first  came  under  historical  notice  the  assembly  of  the  people  to 
discuss  and  adopt  or  reject  public  measures  was  a  phenomenon 
quite  as  constant  as  that  of  a  council  of  chiefs.  It  was  more 
perfectly  systematized  among  the  Romans  under  the  constitu- 
tion of  Romulus  than  among  the  Athenians  in  the  time  of  Solon. 
In  the  rise  and  progress  of  this  institution  may  be  traced  the 
growth  and  development  of  the  democratic  principle. 

This  assembly  among  the  Romans  was  called  the  comitia 
ciiriata,  because  the  members  of  the  gentes  of  adult  age  met 
in  one  assembly  by  curiae,  and  voted  in  the  same  manner. 
Each  curia  had  one  collective  vote,  the  majority  in  each  was 
ascertained  separately,  and  determined  what  that  vote  should 
be.*  It  was  the  assembly  of  the  gentes,  who  alone  were  mem- 
bers of  the  government.  Plebeians  and  clients,  who  already 
formed  a  numerous  class,  were  excluded,  because  there  could 
be  no  connection  with  the  Populns  Roniamis,  except  through 
a  gens  and  tribe.  This  assembly,  as  before  stated,  could  nei- 
ther originate  public  measures,  nor  amend  such  as  were  sub- 
mitted to  them;  but  none  of  a  certain  grade  could  become  op- 
erative until  adopted  by  the  comitia.  All  laws  were  passed  or 
repealed  by  this  assembly;  all  magistrates  and  high  public 
functionaries,  including  the  rex,  were  elected  by  it  on  the  nom- 
ination  of   the   senate.^     The   impcriiim   was    conferred   upon 

'  Livy,  i,  43.      Dionys.,  ii,  14;   iv,  20,  84. 

2  Numa  Pompilius  (Cicero,  De  Rep.,  ii,  11;  Liv.,  i,  17),  Tullus  Hostilius 
(Cicero,  De  Rep.,  ii,  17),  and  Ancus  Martius  (Cic.,  De  Rep.,  ii,  18;  Livy,  i,  32) 


THE  ROMAN  CURIA,   TRIBE  AND  POPULUS.        ^ij 

these  persons  by  a  law  of  the  assembly  {lex  citriata  dc  iinpcrio), 
which  was  the  Roman  method  of  investing  with  office.  Until 
the  impcriwn  was  thus  conferred,  the  person,  although  the  elec- 
tion was  complete,  could  not  enter  upon  his  office.  The  co7Jt~ 
itia  curiata,  by  appeal,  had  the  ultimate  decision  in  criminal 
cases  involving  the  life  of  a  Roman  citizen.  It  was  by  a 
popular  movement  that  the  office  of  rex  was  abolished.  Al- 
though the  assembly  of  the  people  never  acquired  the  power 
of  originating  measures,  its  powers  were  real  and  influential. 
At  this  time  the  people  were  sovereign. 

The  assembly  had  no  power  to  convene  itself;  but  it  is  said 
to  have  met  on  the  summons  of  the  rex,  or,  in  his  absence,  on 
that  of  the  praefect  (praefectus  iirbi\  In  the  time  of  the  re- 
public it  was  convened  by  the  consuls,  or,  in  their  absence,  by 
the  praetor;  and  in  all  cases  the  person  who  convened  the  as- 
sembly presided  over  its  deliberations. 

In  another  connection  the  office  of  rex  has  been  considered. 
The  rex  was  a  general  and  also  a  priest,  but  without  civil  func- 
tions, as  some  writers  have  endeavored  to  imply. ^  His  powers 
as  a  general,  though  not  defined,  were  necessarily  absolute  over 
the  military  forces  in  the  field  and  in  the  city.  If  he  exercised 
any  civil  powers  in  particular  cases,  it  must  be  supposed  that 
they  were  delegated  for  the  occasion.  To  pronounce  him  a 
king,  as  that  term  is  necessarily  understood,  is  to  vitiate  and 
mis-describe  the  popular  government  to  which  he  belonged,  and 
the  institutions  upon  which  it  rested.  The  form  of  government 
under  which  the  rex  and  basileus  appeared  is  identified  with 

were  elected  by  the  coniitia  curiata.  In  the  case  of  Tarquinius  Priscus,  Livy 
observes  that  the  people  by  a  great  majority  elected  him  rex  (i,  35).  It  was 
necessarily  by  the  comitia  citriata.  Servius  Tullius  assumed  the  office  which  was 
afterwards  confirmed  by  the  co)?iitia  (Cicero,  De  Rep.,  ii,  21).  The  right  of  elec- 
tion thus  reserved  to  the  people,  shows  that  the  office  of  rex  was  a  popular  one, 
and  that  his  powers  were  delegated. 

'  Mr.  Leonhard  Schmitz,  one  of  the  ablest  defenders  of  the  theory  of  kingly 
government  among  the  Greeks  and  Romans,  with  great  candor  remarks:  "It  is 
very  difficult  to  determine  the  extent  of  the  king's  powers,  as  the  ancient  writers 
naturally  judged  of  the  kingly  period  by  their  own  republican  constitution,  and 
frequently  assigned  to  the  king,  the  senate,  and  the  comitia  of  the  curicB  the 
respective  powers  and  functions  which  were  only  true  in  reference  to  the  consuls, 
the  senate  and  the  comitia  of  their  own  time." — Smith's  Die.  Gk.  ^  Rom.  Antiq., 
Art.  Rex. 


3 1 8  ANCIENT  SOCIE T  V. 

gentile  institutions  and  disappeared  after  gentile  society  was 
overthrown.  It  was  a  peculiar  organization  having  no  parallel 
in  modern  society,  and  is  unexplainable  in  terms  adapted  to 
monarchical  institutions.  A  military  democracy  under  a  sen- 
ate, an  assembly  of  the  people,  and  a  general  of  their  nomina- 
tion and  election,  is  a  near,  though  it  may  not  be  a  perfect, 
characterization  of  a  government  so  peculiar,  which  belongs 
exclusively  to  ancient  society,  and  rested  on  institutions  essen- 
tially democratical.  Romulus,  in  all  probability,  emboldened 
by  his  great  successes,  assumed  powers  which  were  regarded 
as  dangerous  to  the  senate  and  to  the  people,  and  his  assassina- 
tion by  the  Roman  chiefs  is  a  fair  inference  from  the  statements 
concerning  his  mysterious  disappearance  which  have  come 
down  to  us.  This  act,  atrocious  as  it  must  be  pronounced, 
evinces  that  spirit  of  independence,  inherited  from  the  gentes, 
which  would  not  submit  to  arbitrary  individual  power.  When 
the  office  was  abolished,  and  the  consulate  was  established  in 
its  place,  it  is  not  surprising  that  two  consuls  were  created  in- 
stead of  one.  While  the  powers  of  the  office  might  raise  one 
man  to  a  dangerous  height,  it  could  not  be  the  case  with  two. 
The  same  subtlety  of  reasoning  led  the  Iroquois,  without  orig- 
inal experience,  to  create  two  war-chiefs  of  the  confederacy  in- 
stead of  one,  lest  the  office  of  commander-in-chief,  bestowed 
upon  a  single  man,  should  raise  him  to  a  position  too  influen- 
tial. 

In  his  capacity  of  chief  priest  the  ;r.r  took  the  auspices  on 
important  occasions,  which  was  one  of  the  highest  acts  of  the 
Roman  religious  system,  and  in  their  estimation  quite  as  nec- 
essary in  the  field  on  the  eve  of  a  battle  as  in  the  city.  He 
performed  other  religious  rites  as  well.  It  is  not  surprising 
that  in  those  times  priestly  functions  are  found  among  the  Ro- 
mans, as  among  the  Greeks,  attached  to  or  inherent  in  the 
highest  military  office.  When  the  abolition  of  this  office  oc- 
curred, it  was  found  necessary  to  vest  in  some  one  the  religious 
functions  appertaining  to  it,  which  were  evidently  special; 
whence  the  creation  of  the  new  office  of  rex  sacrificulus,  or 
rex  sacroriun,  the  incumbent  of  which  performed  the  religious 
duties  in  question.     Among  the  Athenians  the  same  idea  re- 


THE  ROMAN  CURIA,   TRIBE  AND  POPULUS.        319 

appears  in  the  second  of  the  nine  archons,  who  was  called  ar- 
chon  basilcHS,  and  had  a  general  supervision  of  religious  affairs. 
Why  religious  functions  were  attached  to  the  office  of  rex  and 
basilcics,  among  the  Romans  and  Greeks,  and  to  the  office  of 
Tcuctli  among  the  Aztecs ;  and  why,  after  the  abolition  of 
the  office  in  the  two  former  cases,  the  ordinary  priesthoods 
could  not  perform  them,  has  not  been  explained. 

Thus  stood  Roman  gentile  society  from  the  time  of  Romulus 
to  the  time  of  Servius  TuUius,  through  a  period  of  more  than 
two  hundred  years,  during  which  the  foundations  of  Roman 
power  were  laid.  The  government,  as  before  remarked,  con- 
sisted of  three  powers,  a  senate,  an  assembly  of  the  people,  and 
a  military  commander.  They  had  experienced  the  necessity 
for  definite  written  laws  to  be  enacted  by  themselves,  as  a  sub- 
stitute for  usages  and  customs.  In  the  rex  they  had  the  ger- 
minal idea  of  a  chief  executive  magistrate,  which  necessity 
pressed  upon  them,  and  which  was  to  advance  into  a  more  com- 
plete form  after  the  institution  of  political  society.  But  they 
found  it  a  dangerous  office  in  those  times  of  limited  experience 
in  the  higher  conceptions  of  government,  because  the  powers  of 
the  rex  were,  in  the  main,  undefined,  as  well  as  difficult  of  def- 
inition. It  is  not  surprising  that  when  a  serious  controversy 
arose  between  the  people  and  Tarquinius  Superbus,  they  de- 
posed the  man  and  abolished  the  office.  As  soon  as  something 
like  the  irresponsible  power  of  a  king  met  them  face  to  face 
it  was  found  incompatible  with  liberty  and  the  latter  gained 
the  victory.  They  were  willing,  however,  to  admit  into  the 
system  of  government  a  limited  executive,  and  they  created  the 
office  in  a  dual  form  in  the  two  consuls.  This  occurred  after  the 
institution  of  political  society. 

No  direct  steps  were  taken,  prior  to  the  time  of  Servius  Tul- 
lius,  to  establish  a  state  founded  upon  territory  and  upon  prop- 
erty; but  the  previous  measures  were  a  preparation  for  that 
event.  In  addition  to  the  institutions  named,  they  had  created 
a  city  magistracy,  and  a  complete  military  system,  including  the 
institution  of  the  equestrian  order.  Under  institutions  purely 
gentile  Rome  had  become,  in  the  time  of  Servius  TuUius,  the 
strongest  military  power  in  Italy. 


320  ANCIENT  SOCIETY. 

Among  the  new  magistrates  created,  that  of  warden  of  the 
city  {ciistos  2irbis)  was  the  most  important.  This  officer,  who 
was  chief  of  the  senate  {^princcps  scnatus),  was,  in  the  first  in- 
stance, according  to  Dionysius,  appointed  by  Romulus.^  The 
senate,  which  had  no  power  to  convene  itself,  was  convened  by 
him.  It  is  also  claimed  that  the  rex  had  power  to  summon  the 
senate.  That  it  would  be  apt  to  convene  upon  his  request, 
through  the  call  of  its  own  officer,  is  probable;  but  that  he 
could  command  its  convocation  is  improbable,  from  its  inde- 
pendence in  functions,  from  its  dignity,  and  from  its  represent- 
ative character.  After  the  time  of  the  Decemvirs  the  name 
of  the  office  was  changed  to  pra^fect  of  the  city  {prcefectus 
W'bi),  its  powers  were  enlarged,  and  it  was  made  elective  by 
the  new  comitia  cent2iriata.  Under  the  republic,  the  consuls, 
and  in  their  absence,  the  praetor,  had  power  to  convene  the  sen- 
ate, and  also  to  hold  the  comitia.  At  a  later  day,  the  office  of 
praetor  (^praetor  iirbamts)  absorbed  the  functions  of  this  an- 
cient office  and  became  its  successor.  A  judicial  magistrate, 
the  Roman  praetor  was  the  prototype  of  the  modern  judge. 
Thus,  every  essential  institution  in  the  government  or  admin- 
istration of  the  affairs  of  society  may  generally  be  traced  to  a 
simple  germ,  which  springs  up  in  a  rude  form  from  human 
wants,  and,  when  able  to  endure  the  test  of  time  and  experi- 
ence, is  developed  into  a  permanent  institution. 

A  knowledge  of  the  tenure  of  the  office  of  chief,  and  of  the 
functions  of  the  council  of  chiefs,  before  the  time  of  Romulus, 
could  they  be  ascertained,  would  reflect  much  light  upon  the  con- 
dition of  Roman  gentile  society  in  the  time  of  Romulus.  More- 
over, the  several  periods  should  be  studied  separately,  because 
the  facts  of  their  social  condition  were  changing  with  their  ad- 
vancement in  intelligence.  The  Italian  period  prior  to  Romu- 
lus, the  period  of  the  seven  rcgcs,  and  the  subsequent  periods 
of  the  republic  and  of  the  empire  are  marked  by  great  differ- 
ences in  the  spirit  and  character  of  the  government.  But  the 
institutions  of  the  first  period  entered  into  the  second,  and 
these  again  were  transmitted  into  the  third,  and  remained  with 
modifications  in  the  fourth.     The  growth,  development  and  fall 

'  Dionys.,  ii,  12. 


THE  ROMAN  CURIA,   TRIBE  AND  POPULUS.        321 

of  these  institutions  embody  the  vital  history  of  the  Roman  peo- 
ple. It  is  by  tracing  these  institutions  from  the  germ  through 
their  successive  stages  of  growth,  on  the  wide  scale  of  the  tribes 
and  nations  of  mankind,  that  we  can  follow  the  great  move- 
ments of  the  human  mind  in  its  evolution  from  its  infancy  in 
savagery  to  its  present  high  development.  Out  of  the  neces- 
sities of  mankind  for  the  organization  of  society  came  the  gens; 
out  of  the  gens  came  the  chief,  and  the  tribe  with  its  council 
of  chiefs;  out  of  the  tribe  came  by  segmentation  the  group  of 
tribes,  afterwards  re- united  in  a  confederacy,  and  finally  con- 
solidated by  coalescence  into  a  nation;  out  of  the  experience 
of  the  council  came  the  necessity  of  an  assembly  of  the  people 
with  a  division  of  the  powers  of  the  government  between  them; 
and  finally,  out  of  the  military  necessities  of  the  united  tribes 
came  the  general  military  commander,  who  became  in  time  a 
third  power  in  the  government,  but  subordinate  to  the  two  su- 
perior powers.  It  was  the  germ  of  the  office  of  the  subsequent 
chief  magistrate,  the  king  and  the  president.  The  principal  in- 
stitutions of  civilized  nations  are  simply  continuations  of  those 
which  germinated  in  savagery,  expanded  in  barbarism,  and 
which  are  still  subsisting  and  advancing  in  civilization. 

As  the  Roman  government  existed  at  the  death  of  Romulus, 
it  was  social,  and  not  political;  it  was  personal,  and  not  terri- 
torial. The  three  tribes  were  located,  it  is  true,  in  separate  and 
distinct  areas  within  the  limits  of  the  city;  but  this  was  the  pre- 
vailing mode  of  settlement  under  gentile  institutions.  Their 
relations  to  each  other  and  to  the  resulting  society,  as  gentes, 
curiae  and  tribes,  were  wholly  personal,  the  government  dealing 
with  them  as  groups  of  persons,  and  with  the  whole  as  the  Ro- 
man people.  Localized  in  this  manner  within  inclosing  ram- 
parts, the  idea  of  a  township  or  city  ward  would  suggest  itself 
when  the  necessity  for  a  change  in  the  plan  of  government  was 
forced  upon  them  by  the  growing  complexity  of  affairs.  It 
was  a  great  change  that  was  soon  to  be  required  of  them,  to  be 
wrought  out  through  experimental  legislation — precisely  the 
same  which  the  Athenians  had  entered  upon  shortly  before  the 
time  of  Servius  Tullius.  Rome  was  founded,  and  its  first  vic- 
tories were  won  under  institutions  purely  gentile;  but  the  fruits 
21 


322  ANCIENT  SOCIETY. 

of  these  achievements  by  their  very  magnitude  demonstrated 
the  inability  of  the  gentes  to  form  the  basis  of  a  state.  But  it 
required  two  centuries  of  intense  activity  in  the  growing  com- 
monweahh  to  prepare  the  way  for  the  institution  of  the  second 
great  plan  of  government  based  upon  territory  and  upon  prop- 
erty. A  withdrawal  of  governing  powers  from  the  gentes, 
curiae  and  tribes,  and  their  bestowal  upon  new  constituencies 
was  the  sacrifice  demanded.  Such  a  change  would  become 
possible  only  through  a  conviction  that  the  gentes  could  not  be 
made  to  yield  such  a  form  of  government  as  their  advanced 
condition  demanded.  It  was  practically  a  question  of  contin- 
uance in  barbarism,  or  progress  into  civilization.  The  inaugu- 
ration of  the  new  system  will  form  the  subject  of  the  next 
chapter. 


CHAPTER  XIII. 

THE  INSTITUTION  OF  ROMAN  POLITICAL  SOCIETY. 

The  Populus. — The  Plebeians. — The  Clients. — The  Patricians. — Limits 
OF  the  Order. — Legislation  of  Servius  Tullius. — Institution  of  Prop- 
erty Classes. — Of  the  Centuries. — Unequal  Suffrage. — Comitia  Cen- 
TURiATA. — Supersedes  Comitia  Curiata. — Classes  supersede  the  Gentes. 
— The  Census. — Plebeians  made  Citizens. — Institution  of  City  Wards. — 
Of  Country  Townships. — Tribes  increased  to  Four. — Made  Local  in- 
stead of  Consanguine. — Character  of  New  Political  System. — Decline 
AND  Disappearance  of  Gentile  Organization. — The  Work  it  Accom- 
plished. 

Servius  Tullius,  the  sixth  chief  of  the  Roman  military  democ- 
racy, came  to  the  succession  about  one  hundred  and  thirty-three 
years  after  the  death  of  Romulus,  as  near  as  the  date  can  be 
ascertained.^  This  would  place  his  accession  about  576  B.  C. 
To  this  remarkable  man  the  Romans  were  chiefly  indebted  for 
the  establishment  of  their  political  system.  It  will  be  sufficient 
to  indicate  its  main  features,  together  with  some  of  the  reasons 
which  led  to  its  adoption. 

From  the  time  of  Romulus  to  that  of  Servius  Tullius  the 
Romans  consisted  of  two  distinct  classes,  the  populus  and  the 
plebeians.  Both  were  personally  free,  and  both  entered  the 
ranks  of  the  army;  but  the  former  alone  were  organized  in 
gentes,  curiae  and  tribes,  and  held  the  powers  of  the  govern- 
ment. The  plebeians,  on  the  other  hand,  did  not  belong  to 
any  gens,  curia  or  tribe,  and  consequently  were  without  the 

1  Dionysius,  iv,  I. 


324 


ANCIENT  SOCIETY. 


government.^  They  were  excluded  from  office,  from  the 
coDiitia  curiata,  and  from  the  sacred  rites  of  the  gentes. 
In  the  time  of  Servius  tliey  had  become  nearly  if  not  quite  as 
numerous  as  the  popiilus.  They  were  in  the  anomalous  posi- 
tion of  being  subject  to  the  military  service,  and  of  possessing 
families  and  property,  which  identified  them  with  the  interests 
of  Rome,  without  being  in  any  sense  connected  with  the  gov- 
ernment. Under  gentile  institutions,  as  we  have  seen,  there 
could  be  no  connection  with  the  government  except  through  a 
recognized  gens,  and  the  plebeians  had  no  gentes.  Such  a 
state  of  things,  affecting  so  large  a  portion  of  the  people,  was 
dangerous  to  the  commonwealth.  Admitting  of  no  remedy 
under  gentile  institutions,  it  must  have  furnished  one  of  the 
prominent  reasons  for  attempting  the  overthrow  of  gentile  soci- 
ety, and  the  substitution  of  political.  The  Roman  fabric  would, 
in  all  probability,  have  fallen  in  pieces  if  a  remedy  had  not  been 
devised.  It  was  commenced  in  the  time  of  Romulus,  renewed 
by  Numa  Pompilius,  and  completed  by  Servius  Tullius. 

The  origin  both  of  the  plebeians  and  of  the  patricians,  and 
their  subsequent  relations  to  each  other,  have  been  fruitful 
themes  of  discussion  and  of  disagreement.  A  few  suggestions 
may  be  ventured  upon  each  of  these  questions. 

A  person  was  a  plebeian  because  he  was  not  a  member  of  a 
gens,  organized  with  other  gentes  in  a  curia  and  tribe.  It  is 
easy  to  understand  how  large  numbers  of  persons  would  have 
become  detached  from  the  gentes  of  their  birth  in  the  unsettled 
times  which  preceded  and  followed  the  founding  of  Rome. 
The  adventurers  who  flocked  to  the  new  city  from  the  sur- 
rounding tribes,  the  captives  taken  in  their  wars  and  afterwards 
set  free,  and  the  unattached  persons  mingled  with  the  gentes 
transplanted  to  Rome,  would  rapidly  furnish  such  a  class.  It 
might  also  well  happen  that  in  filling  up  the  hundred  gentes 
of  each  tribe,  fragments  of  gentes,  and  gentes  having  less  than 
a  prescribed  number  of  persons,  were  excluded.     These  unat- 

'  Niebuhr  says:  "The  existence  of  the  plebs  as  acknowledgedly  a  free  and 
very  numerous  portion  of  the  nation,  may  be  traced  back  to  the  reign  of  Ancus  ; 
but  before  the  time  of  Servius  it  was  only  an  aggregate  of  unconnected  parts,  not 
a  united  regular  whole." — History  of  Rome,  I.  c,  i,  315- 


INSTITUTION  OF  ROMAN  POLITICAL  SOCIETY. 


325 


tached  persons,  with  the  fragments  of  gentes  thus  excluded 
from  recognition  and  organization  in  a  curia,  would  soon  be- 
come, with  their  children  and  descendants,  a  great  and  increas- 
ing class.  Such  were  the  Roman  plebeians,  who,  as  such,  were 
not  members  of  the  Roman  gentile  society.  It  seems  to  be  a 
fair  inference  from  the  epithet  applied  to  the  senators  of  the 
Luceres,  the  third  Roman  tribe  admitted,  who  were  styled 
"Fathers  of  the  Lesser  Gentes,"  that  the  old  gentes  were  reluc- 
tant to  acknowledge  their  entire  equality.  For  a  stronger  rea- 
son they  debarred  the  plebeians  from  all  participation  in  the 
government.  When  the  third  tribe  was  filled  up  with  the  pre- 
scribed number  of  gentes,  the  last  avenue  of  admission  was 
closed,  after  which  the  number  in  the  plebeian  class  would  in- 
crease with  greater  rapidity.  Niebuhr  remarks  that  the  exist- 
ence of  the  plebeian  class  may  be  traced  to  the  time  of  Ancus, 
thus  implying  that  they  made  their  first  appearance  at  that 
time.^  He  also  denies  that  the  clients  were  a  part  of  the  ple- 
beian body;^  in  both  of  which  positions  he  differs  from  Dio- 
nysius,^  and  from  Plutarch.'*  The  institution  of  the  relation  of 
patron  and  client  is  ascribed  by  the  authors  last  named  to  Rom- 
ulus, and  it  is  recognized  by  Suetonius  as  existing  in  the  time 
of  Romulus.^  A  necessity  for  such  an  institution  existed  in 
the  presence  of  a  class  without  a  gentile  status,  and  without  re- 
ligious rites,  who  would  avail  themselves  of  this  relation  for  the 
protection  of  their  persons  and  property,  and  for  the  access  it 
gave  them  to  religious  privileges.  Members  of  a  gens  would 
not  be  without  this  protection  or  these  privileges;  neither 
would  it  befit  the  dignity  or  accord  with  the  obligations  of  a 
gens  to  allow  one  of  its  members  to  accept  a  patron  in  another 
gens.  The  unattached  class,  or,  in  other  words,  the  plebeians, 
were  the  only  persons  who  would  naturally  seek  patrons  and 

1  History  of  Rome,  i,  315. 

*  "That  the  clients  were  total  strangers  to  the  plebeian  commonalty  and  did  not 
coalesce  with  it  until  late,  when  the  bond  of  servitude  had  been  loosened,  partly 
from  the  houses  of  their  patrons  dying  off  or  sinking  into  decay,  partly  from  the 
advance  of  the  whole  nation  toward  freedom,  will  be  proved  in  the  sequel  of  this 
history." — History  of  Rome,  \,  315. 

3  Dionysius,  ii,  8. 

■•  Plutarch,   Vit.  Rom.,  xiii,  16. 

'  Vit,  Tiberius,  cap.  i. 


326  ANCIENT  SOCIETY. 

become  their  clients.  The  clients  formed  no  part  of  the  popu- 
lus  for  the  reasons  stated.  It  seems  plain,  notwithstanding  the 
weight  of  Niebuhr's  authority  on  Roman  questions,  that  the 
clients  were  a  part  of  the  plebeian  body. 

The  next  question  is  one  of  extreme  difficulty,  namely :  the 
origin  and  extent  of  the  patrician  class — whether  it  originated 
with  the  institution  of  the  Roman  Senate,  and  was  limited  to 
the  senators,  and  to  their  children  and  descendants;  or  included 
the  entire  popuhis,  as  distinguished  from  the  plebeians.  It  is 
claimed  by  the  most  eminent  modern  authorities  that  the  entire 
populus  were  patricians.  Niebuhr,  who  is  certainly  the  first  on 
Roman  questions,  adopts  this  view,^  to  which  Long,  Schmitz, 
and  others  have  given  their  concurrence.^  But  the  reasons  as- 
signed are  not  conclusive.  The  existence  of  the  patrician  class, 
and  of  the  plebeian  class  as  well,  may  be  traced,  as  stated,  to 
the  time  of  Romulus.^  If  the  populus,  \\\\o  were  the  entire  body 
of  the  people  organized  in  gentes,  were  all  patricians  at  this 
early  day,  the  distinction  would  have  been  nominal,  as  the  ple- 
beian class  was  then  unimportant.  Moreover,  the  plain  state- 
ments of  Cicero  and  of  Livy  are  not  reconcilable  with  this  con- 
clusion. Dionysius,  it  is  true,  speaks  of  the  institution  of  the  pa- 
trician class  as  occurring  before  that  of  the  senate,  and  as  com- 
posed of  a  limited  number  of  persons  distinguished  for  their 
birth,  their  virtue,  and  their  wealth;  thus  excluding  the  poor 
and  obscure  in  birth,  although  they  belonged  to  the  historical 
gentes.*  Admitting  a  class  of  patricians  without  senatorial  con- 
nection, there  was  still  a  large  class  remaining  in  the  several  gen- 
tes who  were  not  patricians.  Cicero  has  left  a  plain  statement 
that  the  senators  and  their  children  w'ere  patricians,  and  without 
referring  to  the  existence  of  any  patrician  class  beyond  their 
number.  When  that  senate  of  Romulus,  he  remarks,  which 
was  constituted  of  the  best  men,  whom  Romulus  himself  re- 
spected so  highly  that  he  wished  them  to  be  called  fathers,  and- 
their  children  patricians,  attempted,^  etc.     The  meaning  attached 

>  Hist,  of  Rome,  i,  256,  450. 

s  Smith's  Du:.,  Articles  Gens,  Patricii,  and  Plcbs. 

^Dionysius,  ii,  8;  Plutarch,  Vit.  Rom.,  xiii.  ■*  Ih.,  ii,  8. 

•  Quum  ille  Romuli  Senatus,  qui  constabat  ex  optimatibus,  quibus  ipse  Rex 
tantum  tribuisset,  ut  eos  patres  vellet  nominari  patriciosque  eorum  liberos, 
tentaret,  etc. — De  Rep.,  ii,  12. 


INSTITUTION  OF  ROMAN  POLITICAL  SOCIETY.    327 

to  the  word  fathers  {patres)  as  here  used  was  a  subject  of  disa- 
greement among  the  Romans  themselves;  but  the  word patricii, 
for  the  class  is  formed  upon  patres,  thus  tending  to  show  the 
necessary  connection  of  the  patricians  with  the  senatorial  office. 
Since  each  senator  at  the  outset  represented,  in  all  probability, 
a  gens,  and  the  three  hundred  thus  represented  all  the  recog- 
nized gentes,  this  fact  could  not  of  itself  make  all  the  members 
of  the  gentes  patricians,  because  the  dignity  was  limited  to  the 
senators,  their  children,  and  their  posterity.  Livy  is  equally  ex- 
plicit. They  were  certainly  called  fathers,  he  remarks,  on  ac- 
count of  their  official  dignity,  and  their  posterity  {progenies) 
patricians.^  Under  the  reges  and  also  under  the  republic,  indi- 
viduals were  created  patricians  by  the  government;  but  apart 
from  the  senatorial  office,  and  special  creation  by  the  govern- 
ment, the  rank  could  not  be  obtained.  It  is  not  improbable 
that  a  number  of  persons,  not  admitted  into  the  senate  when  it 
was  instituted,  were  placed  by  pubhc  act  on  the  same  level  with 
the  senators  as  to  the  new  patrician  rank;  but  this  would  include 
a  small  number  only  of  the  members  of  the  three  hundred  gen- 
tes, all  of  whom  were  embraced  in  the  Populus  Romanus. 

It  is  not  improbable  that  the  chiefs  of  the  gentes  were  called 
fathers  before  the  time  of  Romulus,  to  indicate  the  paternal  char- 
acter of  the  office;  and  that  the  office  may  have  conferred  a  spe- 
cies of  recognized  rank  upon  their  posterity.  But  we  have  no 
direct  evidence  of  the  fact.  Assuming  it  to  have  been  the  case, 
and  further,  that  the  senate  at  its  institution  did  not  include  all 
the  principal  chiefs,  and  further  still,  that  when  vacancies  in  the 
senate  were  subsequently  filled,  the  selection  was  made  on  ac- 
count of  merit  and  not  on  account  of  gens,  a  foundation  for  a 
patrician  class  might  have  previously  existed  independently  of 
the  senate.  These  assumptions  might  be  used  to  explain  the 
peculiar  language  of  Cicero,  namely;  that  Romulus  desired  that 
the  senators  might  be  called  Fathers,  possibly  because  this  was 
already  the  honored  title  of  the  chiefs  of  the  gentes.  In  this 
way  a  limited  foundation  for  a  patrician  class  may  be  found  in- 
dependent of  the  senate;  but  it  would  not  be  broad  enough  to 
include  all  the  recognized  gentes.     It  was  in  connection  with  the 


1  Patres  certe  ab  honore,  patriciique  progenies  eorum  appellati. — Liv.,  i,  8. 


328 


ANCIENT  SOCIETY. 


senators  that  the  suggestion  was  made  that  their  children  and 
descendants  should  be  called  patricians.  The  same  statement 
is  repeated  by  Paterculus.^ 

It  follows  that  there  could  be  no  patrician  gens  and  no  ple- 
beian gens,  although  particular  families  in  one  gens  might  be 
patricians,  and  in  another  plebeians.  There  is  some  confusion 
also  upon  this  point.  All  the  adult  male  members  of  the 
Fabian  gens,  to  the  number  of  three  hundred  and  six,  were 
patricians.^  It  must  be  explained  by  the  supposition  that  all 
the  families  in  this  gens  could  trace  their  descent  from  senators, 
or  to  some  public  act  by  which  their  ancestors  were  raised  to 
the  patriciate.  There  were  of  course  patrician  families  in  many 
gentes,  and  at  a  later  day  patrician  and  plebeian  families  in  the 
same  gens.  Thus  the  Claudii  and  Marcelli,  before  referred  to 
{supra  p.  287),  were  two  families  of  the  Claudian  gens,  but  the 
Claudii  alone  were  patricians.  It  will  be  borne  in  mind,  that 
prior  to  the  time  of  Servius  Tullius  the  Romans  were  divided 
into  two  classes,  the  populns  and  the  plebeians;  but  that  after 
his  time,  and  particularly  after  the  Licinian  legislation  (367 
B.  C.)  by  which  all  the  dignities  of  the  state  were  opened  to 
every  citizen,  the  Roman  people,  of  the  degree  of  freemen,  fell 
into  two  political  classes,  which  may  be  distinguished  as  the 
aristocracy  and  the  commonalty.  The  former  class  consisted 
of  the  senators,  and  those  descended  from  senators,  together 
with  those  who  had  held  either  of  the  three  curule  offices, 
(consul,  praetor,  and  curule  aedilc)  and  their  descendants. 
The  commonalty  were  now  Roman  citizens.  The  gentile 
org-anization  had  fahen  into  decadence,  and  the  old  division 
could  no  longer  be  maintained.  Persons,  who  in  the  first 
period  as  belonging  to  the  popiilus,  could  not  be  classed  with 
the  plebeians,  would  in  the  subsequent  period  belong  to  the 
aristocracy  without  being  patricians.  The  Claudii  could  trace 
their  descent  from  Appius  Claudius  who  was  made  a  senator 
in  the  time  of  Romulus;  but  the  Marcelli  could  not  trace 
their  descent  from  him,  nor  from  any  other  senator,  although, 

'  Hie  centum  homines  electos,  appellatosque  Palres,  instar  habuit  consilii  publici. 
Hanc  originem  nomen  Patriciorum  habet. —  Vclleus  Paterculus,  i,  8. 
*  Livy,  ii,  49. 


INSTITUTION  OF  ROMAN  POLITICAL  SOCIETY.     329 

as  Niebuhr  remarks,  "equal  to  the  Apii  in  the  splendor  of 
the  honors  they  attained  to,  and  incomparably  more  useful  to 
the  commonwealth."^  This  is  a  sufficient  explanation  of  the 
position  of  the  Marcelli  without  resorting  to  the  fanciful  hy- 
pothesis of  Niebuhr,  that  the  Marcelli  had  lost  patrician  rank 
through  a  marriage  of  disparagement.^ 

The  patrician  class  were  necessarily  numerous,  because  the 
senators,  rarely  less  than  three  hundred,  were  chosen  as  often 
as  vacancies  occurred,  thus  constantly  including  new  families; 
and  because  it  conferred  patrician  rank  on  their  posterity. 
Others  were  from  time  to  time  made  patricians  by  act  of  the 
state. ^  This  distinction,  at  first  probably  of  little  value,  be- 
came of  great  importance  with  their  increase  in  wealth,  num- 
bers and  power;  and  it  changed  the  complexion  of  Roman  so- 
ciety. The  full  effect  of  introducing  a  privileged  class  in  Ro- 
man gentile  society  was  not  probably  appreciated  at  the  time; 
and  it  is  questionable  M^hether  this  institution  did  not  exercise 
a  more  injurious  than  beneficial  influence  upon  the  subsequent 
career  of  the  Roman  people. 

When  the  gentes  had  ceased  to  be  organizations  for  govern- 
mental purposes  under  the  new  political  system,  the  populus  no 
longer  remained  as  distinguished  from  the  plebeians;  but  the 
shadow  of  the  old  organization  and  of  the  old  distinction  re- 
mained far  into  the  republic.'*  The  plebeians*  under  the  new 
system  were  Roman  citizens,  but  they  were  now  the  common- 
alty; the  question  of  the  connection  or  non-connection  with  a 
gens  not  entering  into  the  distinction. 

From  Romulus  to  Servius  Tullius  the  Roman  organization, 
as  before  stated,  was  simply  a  gentile  society,  without  relation 
to  territory  or  to  property.  All  we  find  is  a  series  of  aggre- 
gates of  persons,  in  gentes,  curiae  and  tribes,  by  means  of 
which  the  people  were  dealt  with  by  the  government  as  groups 
of  persons  forming  these  several  organic  unities.  Their  condi- 
tion was  precisely  like  that  of  the  Athenians  prior  to  the  time 
of  Solon.     But  they  had  instituted  a  senate  in  the  place  of  the 

'  History  of  Rome,  i,  246,  2  /^_  ^  j^  246. 

3  Livy,  iv,  4. 

*  A  plebe  consensu  populi  consulibus  negotium  mandatur. — Liv.,  iv.  51. 


330 


ANCIENT  SOCIETY. 


old  council  of  chiefs,  a  comitia  curiata  in  the  place  of  the  old 
assembly  of  the  people,  and  had  chosen  a  military  commander, 
with  the  additional  functions  of  a  priest  and  judge.  With  a 
government  of  three  powers,  co-ordinated  with  reference  to 
their  principal  necessities,  and  with  a  coalescence  of  the  three 
tribes,  composed  of  an  equal  number  of  gentes  and  curiae,  into 
one  people,  they  possessed  a  higher  and  more  complete  gov- 
ernmental organization  than  the  Latin  tribes  had  before  attain- 
ed. A  numerous  class  had  gradually  developed,  however,  who 
were  without  the  pale  of  the  government,  and  without  religious 
privileges,  excepting  that  portion  who  had  passed  into  the  re- 
lation of  clients.  If  not  a  dangerous  class,  their  exclusion  from 
citizenship,  and  from  all  participation  in  the  government,  was 
detrimental  to  the  commonwealth.  A  municipality  was  grow- 
ing up  upon  a  scale  of  magnitude  unknown  in  their  previous  ex- 
perience, requiring  a  special  organization  to  conduct  its  local 
affairs.  A  necessity  for  a  change  in  the  plan  of  government 
must  have  forced  itself  more  and  more  upon  the  attention  of 
thoughtful  men.  The  increase  of  numbers  and  of  wealth,  and 
the  difficulty  of  managing  their  affairs,  now  complex  from 
weight  of  numbers  and  diversity  of  interests,  began  to  reveal 
the  fact,  it  must  be  supposed,  that  they  could  not  hold  together 
under  gentile  institutions.  A  conclusion  of  this  kind  is  requir- 
ed to  explain  the  several  expedients  which  were  tried. 

Numa,  the  successor  of  Romulus,  made  the  first  significant 
movement,  because  it  reveals  the  existence  of  an  impression, 
that  a  great  power  could  not  rest  upon  gentes  as  the  basis  of  a 
system.  He  attempted  to  traverse  the  gentes,  as  Theseus  did, 
by  dividing  the  people  into  classes,  some  eight  in  number,  ac- 
cording to  their  arts  and  trades.^  Plutarch,  who  is  the  chief 
authority  for  this  statement,  speaks  of  this  division  of  the  peo- 
ple according  to  their  vocations  as  the  most  admired  of  Numa's 
institutions;  and  remarks  further,  that  it  was  designed  to  take 
away  the  distinction  between  Latin  and  Sabine,  both  name  and 

'  ^Hv  dl  ij  Siavo/.t?}  Hard  rd>?  zexyoci,  avXrjrwv, 
XpvdoxoGov,  T£Kt6vo3v,  fiacpioav,  duvroro^oov, 
dHVTodeipcSv,  ;faA«££»V,  xEpa/usoov. 

— Plutarch,  Vit.  Numa,  xvii,  20. 


INSTITUTION  OF  ROMAN  POLITICAL  SOCIETY.    331 

thing,  by  mixing  them  together  in  a  new  distribution.  But  as 
he  did  not  invest  the  classes  with  the  powers  exercised  by  the 
gentes,  the  measure  failed,  like  the  similar  attempt  of  Theseus, 
and  for  the  same  reason.  Each  guild,  as  we  are  assured  by 
Plutarch,  had  its  separate  hall,  court  and  religious  observances. 
These  records,  though  traditionary,  of  the  same  experiment  in 
Attica  and  at  Rome,  made  for  the  same  object,  for  similar  rea- 
sons, and  by  the  same  instrumentalities,  render  the  inference 
reasonable  that  the  experiment  as  stated  was  actually  tried  in 
each  case. 

Servius  Tullius  instituted  the  new  system,  and  placed  it  upon 
a  foundation  where  it  remained  to  the  close  of  the  republic,  al- 
though changes  were  afterwards  made  in  the  nature  of  improve- 
ments. His  period  (about  576-533  B.  C.)  follows  closely  that 
of  Solon  (596  B.  C),  and  precedes  that  of  Cleisthenes  (509  B. 
C).  The  legislation  ascribed  to  him,  and  which  was  obviously 
modeled  upon  that  of  Solon,  may  be  accepted  as  having  oc- 
curred as  early  as  the  time  named,  because  the  system  was  in 
practical  operation  when  the  republic  was  established  509  B. 
C,  within  the  historical  period.  Moreover,  the  new  political 
system  may  as  properly  be  ascribed  to  him  as  great  measures 
have  been  attributed  to  other  men,  although  in  both  cases  the 
legislator  does  little  more  than  formulate  what  experience  had 
already  suggested  and  pressed  upon  his  attention.  The  three 
principal  changes  which  set  aside  the  gentes  and  inaugurated 
political  society  based  upon  territory  and  upon  property,  were: 
first,  the  substitution  of  classes,  formed  upon  the  measure  of  in- 
dividual wealth,  in  the  place  of  the  gentes;  second,  the  institu- 
tion of  the  comitia  cenhiriata,  as  the  new  popular  assembly,  in 
the  place  of  the  comitia  awiata,  the  assembly  of  the  gentes, 
with  a  transfer  of  the  substantial  powers  of  the  latter  to  the 
former;  and  third,  the  creation  of  four  city  wards,  in  the  nat- 
ure of  townships,  circumscribed  by  metes  and  bounds  and 
named  as  territorial  areas,  in  which  the  residents  of  each  ward 
were  required  to  enroll  their  names  and  register  their  property. 

Imitating  Solon,  with  whose  plan  of  government  he  was 
doubtless  familiar,  Servius  divided  the  people  into  five  classes, 
according  to  the  value  of  their  property,  the  effect  of  which 


332  ANCIENT  SOCIETY. 

was  to  concentrate  in  one  class  the  wealthiest  men  of  the  sev- 
eral gentes.^  Each  class  .was  then  subdivided  into  centuries, 
the  number  in  each  being  established  arbitrarily  without  regard 
to  the  actual  number  of  persons  it  contained,  and  with  one 
vote  to  each  century  in  the  comitia.  The  amount  of  political 
power  to  be  held  by  each  class  was  thus  determined  by  the 
number  of  centuries  given  to  each.  Thus,  the  first  class  con- 
sisted of  eighty  centuries,  with  eighty  votes  in  the  comitia  cen- 
turiata;  the  second  class  of  twenty  centuries,  to  which  two 
centuries  of  artisans  were  attached,  with  twenty-two  votes; 
the  third  class  of  twenty  centuries,  with  twenty  votes;  the 
fourth  class  of  twenty,  to  which  two  centuries  of  horn-blowers 
and  trumpeters  were  attached,  with  twenty-two  votes;  and  the 
fifth  class  of  thirty  centuries,  with  thirty  votes.  In  addition  to 
these,  the  equites  consisted  of  eighteen  centuries,  with  eight- 
een votes.  To  these  classes  Dionysius  adds  a  sixth  class,  con- 
sisting of  one  century,  with  one  vote.  It  was  composed  of 
those  who  had  no  property,  or  less  than  the  amount  required 
for  admission  into  the  fifth  class.  They  neither  paid  taxes,  nor 
served  in  war.^  The  whole  number  of  centuries  in  the  six 
classes  with  the  equites  added,  made  a  total  of  one  hundred 
and  ninety-three,  according  to  Dionysius.^  Livy,  agreeing  with 
the  former  as  to  the  number  of  regular  centuries  in  the  five 
classes,  differs  from  him  by  excluding  the  sixth  class,  the  per- 
sons being  formed  into  one  century  with  one  vote,  and  includ- 
ed in  or  attached  to  the  fifth  class.  He  also  makes  three  cen- 
turies of  horn-blowers  instead  of  two,  and  the  whole  number 
of  centuries  one  more  than  Dionysius.''  Cicero  remarks  that 
ninety-six  centuries  were  a  minority,  which  would  be  equally 
true  under  either  statement.^  The  centuries  of  each  class  were 
divided  into  seniors  and  juniors,  of  which  the  senior  centuries 
were  composed  of  such  persons  as  were  above  the  age  of  fifty- 
five  years,  and  were  charged  with  the  duty,  as  soldiers,  of  de- 

'  The  property  qualification  for  the  first  class  was  100,000  asses ;  for  the  second 
class,  75,000  asses;  for  the  third,  50,000;  for  the  fourth,  25,000;  and  for  the  fifth, 
11,000  asses. — Livy,  i,  43. 

*  Dionysius,  iv,  20.  3  /^.  ^  iv,  16,  17,  18. 

*  Livy,  i,  43. 

*  De  Rep.,  ii,  20. 


INSTITUTION  OF  ROMAN  POLITICAL  SOCIETY.    333 

fending  the  city;  while  the  junior  centuries  consisted  of  those 
persons  who  were  below  this  age  and  above  seventeen,  and 
were  charged  with  external  military  enterprises.^  The  arma- 
ture of  each  class  was  prescribed  and  made  different  for  each.^ 

It  will  be  noticed  that  the  control  of  the  government,  so  far 
as  the  assembly  of  the  people  could  influence  its  action,  was 
placed  in  the  hands  of  the  first  class,  and  the  equites.  They 
held  together  ninety-eight  votes,  a  majority  of  the  whole.  Each 
century  agreed  upon  its  vote  separately  when  assembled  in  the 
comitia  centiiriata,  precisely  as  each  curia  had  been  accustomed 
to  do  in  the  comitia  ciiriata.  In  taking  a  vote  upon  any  public 
question,  the  equites  were  called  first,  and  then  the  first  class. ^  If 
they  agreed  in  their  votes  it  decided  the  question,  and  the  re- 
maining centuries  were  not  called  upon  to  vote;  but  if  they 
disagreed,  the  second  class  was  called,  and  so  on  to  the  last,  un- 
less a  majority  sooner  appeared. 

The  powers  formerly  exercised  by  the  comitia  curiata,  now 
transferred  to  the  comitia  centiiriata,  were  enlarged  in  some 
slight  particulars  in  the  subsequent  period.  It  elected  all  offi- 
cers and  magistrates  on  the  nomination  of  the  senate;  it  en- 
acted or  rejected  laws  proposed  by  the  senate,  no  measure  be- 
coming a  law  without  its  sanction;  it  repealed  existing  laws  on 
the  proposition  of  the  same  body,  if  they  chose  to  do  so;  and 
it  declared  war  on  the  same  recommendation.  But  the  senate 
concluded  peace  without  consulting  the  assembly.  An  appeal 
in  all  cases  involving  life  could  he  taken  to  this  assembly  as  the 
highest  judicial  tribunal  of  the  state.  These  powers  were  sub- 
stantial, but  limited — control  over  the  finances  being  excluded. 
A  majority  of  the  votes,  however,  were  lodged  with  the  first 
class,  including  the  equites,  which  embraced  the  body  of  the 
patricians,  as  must  be  supposed,  and  the  wealthiest  citizens. 
Property  and  not  numbers  controlled  the  government.  They 
were  able,  however,  to  create  a  body  of  laws  in  the  course  of 
time  which  afforded  equal  protection  to  all,  and  thus  tended  to 
redeem  the  worst  effects  of  the  inequalities  of  the  system. 

'  Dionysms,  iv,  16. 
«  Livy,  i,  43. 

3  Livy,  i,  43 ;  But  Dionysius  places  the  equites  in  the  first  class,  and  remarks 
that  this  class  was  first  called. — Dionys.,  iv,  20. 


334 


ANCIENT  SOCIETY. 


The  meetings  of  the  comitia  were  held  in  the  Campus  Mar- 
tius  annually  for  the  election  of  magistrates  and  officers,  and  at 
other  times  when  the  public  necessities  required.  The  people 
assembled  by  centuries,  and  by  classes  under  their  officers,  or- 
ganized as  an  army  {excrcitiis);  for  the  centuries  and  classes 
were  designed  to  subserve  all  the  purposes  of  a  military  as  well 
as  a  civil  organization.  At  the  first  muster  under  Servius  Tul- 
lius,  eighty  thousand  citizen  soldiers  appeared  in  the  Campus 
Martius  under  arms,  each  man  in  his  proper  century,  each  cen- 
tury in  its  class,  and  each  class  by  itself^  Every  member  of  a 
century  was  now  a  citizen  of  Rome,  which  was  the  most  impor- 
tant fruit  of  the  new  political  system.  In  the  time  of  the  re- 
public the  consuls,  and  in  their  absence,  the  praetor,  had  power 
to  convene  the  comitia,  which  was  presided  over  by  the  person 
who  caused  it  to  assemble. 

Such  a  government  appears  to  us,  in  the  light  of  our  more 
advanced  experience,  both  rude  and  clumsy;  but  it  was  a  sen- 
sible improvement  upon  the  previous  gentile  government,  de- 
fective and  illiberal  as  it  appears.  Under  it,  Rome  became  mis- 
tress of  the  world.  The  element  of  property,  now  rising  into 
commanding  importance,  determined  its  character.  It  had 
brought  aristocracy  and  privilege  into  prominence,  which  seized 
the  opportunity  to  withdraw  the  control  of  the  government  in 
a  great  measure  from  the  hands  of  the  people,  and  bestow  it 
upon  the  men  of  property.  It  was  a  movement  in  the  oppo- 
site direction  from  that  to  which  the  democratic  principles  in- 
herited from  the  gentes  naturally  tended.  Against  the  new  el- 
ements of  aristocracy  and  privilege  now  incorporated  in  their 
governmental  institutions,  the  Roman  plebeians  contended 
throughout  the  period  of  the  republic,  and  at  times  with  some 
measure  of  success.  But  patrician  rank  and  property  pos- 
sessed by  the  higher  classes,  were  too  powerful  for  the  wiser 
and  grander  doctrines  of  equal  rights  and  equal  privileges  rep- 
resented by  the  plebeians.  It  was  even  then  far  too  heavy  a 
tax  upon  Roman  society  to  carry  a  privileged  class. 

Cicero,  patriot  and  noble  Roman  as  he  was,  approved  and 
commended  this  gradation  of  the  people  into  classes,  with  the 

'  Livy,  i,  44;  Dionysius  states  the  number  at  84,700. — iv,  22. 


INSTITUTION  OF  ROMAN  POLITICAL  SOCIETY.    335 

bestowment  of  a  controlling  influence  in  the  government  upon 
the  minority  of  citizens.  Servius  Tullius,  he  remarks,  "having 
created  a  large  number  of  equites  from  the  common  mass  of 
the  people,  divided  the  remainder  into  five  classes,  distinguish- 
ing between  the  seniors  and  juniors,  which  he  so  constituted 
as  to  place  the  suffrages,  not  in  the  hands  of  the  multitude,  but 
of  the  men  of  property;  taking  care  to  make  it  a  rule  of  ours, 
as  it  ought  to  be  in  every  government,  that  the  greatest 
number  should  not  have  the  greatest  weight."^  In  the 
light  of  the  experience  of  the  intervening  two  thousand 
years,  it  may  well  be  observed  that  the  inequality  of  privileges, 
and  the  denial  of  the  right  of  self-government  here  commended, 
created  and  developed  that  mass  of  ignorance  and  corruption 
which  ultimately  destroyed  both  government  and  people.  The 
human  race  is  gradually  learning  the  simple  lesson,  that  the 
people  as  a  whole  are  wiser  for  the  public  good  and  the  public 
prosperity,  than  any  privileged  class  of  men,  however  refined 
and  cultivated,  have  ever  been,  or,  by  any  possibility,  can  ever 
become.  Governments  over  societies  the  most  advanced  are 
still  in  a  transitional  stage;  and  they  are  necessarily  and  logic- 
ally moving,  as  President  Grant,  not  without  reason,  intimated 
in  his  last  inaugural  address,  in  the  direction  of  democracy; 
that  form  of  self-government  which  represents  and  expresses 
the  average  intelligence  and  virtue  of  a  free  and  educated 
people. 

The  property  classes  subserved  the  useful  purpose  of  break- 
ing up  the  gentes,  as  the  basis  of  a  governmental  system,  by 
transferring  their  powers  to  a  different  body.  It  was  evidently 
the  principal  object  of  the  Servian  legislation  to  obtain  a  de- 
liverance from  the  gentes,  which  were  close  corporations,  and 
to  give  the  new  government  a  basis  wide  enough  to  include  all 
the  inhabitants  of  Rome,  with  the  exception  of  the  slaves. 
After  the  classes  had  accomplished  this  work,  it  might  have  been 
expected  that  they  would  have  died  out  as  they  did  at  Athens; 
and  that  city  wards  and  country  townships,  with  their  inhab- 
itants organized  as  bodies  politic,  would  have  become  the 
basis  of  the  new  political  system,  as  they  rightfully  and  logic- 

1  Cicero,  De  Rep.,  ii,  20. 


336  ANCIENT  SOCIETY. 

ally  should.  But  the  municipal  organization  of  Rome  pre- 
vented this  consummation.  It  gained  at  the  outset,  and  main- 
tained to  the  end  the  central  position  in  the  government,  to 
which  all  areas  without  were  made  subordinate.  It  presents 
the  anomaly  of  a  great  central  municipal  government  ex- 
panded, in  effect,  first  over  Italy,  and  finally  over  the  con- 
quered provinces  of  three  continents.  The  five  classes,  with 
some  modifications  of  the  manner  of  voting,  remained  to  the 
end  of  the  republic.  The  creation  of  a  new  assembly  of  the 
people  to  take  the  place  of  the  old,  discloses  the  radical  char- 
acter of  the  Servian  constitution.  These  classes  would  never 
have  acquired  vitality  without  a  newly  constituted  assembly,  in- 
vesting them  with  political  powers.  With  the  increase  of  wealth 
and  population  the  duties  and  responsibilities  of  this  assembly 
were  much  increased.  It  was  evidently  the  intention  of  Servius 
Tullius  that  it  should  extinguish  the  coviitia  ciiriata,  and  with 
it  the  power  of  the  gentes. 

This  legislator  is  said  to  have  instituted  the  coinitia  tributa, 
•a  separate  assembly  of  each  local  tribe  or  ward,  whose  chief 
duties  related  to  the  assessment  and  collection  of  taxes,  and  to 
furnishing  contingents  of  troops.  At  a  later  day  this  assembly 
elected  the  tribunes  of  the  people.  The  ward  was  the  natural 
unit  of  their  political  system,  and  the  centre  where  local  self- 
government  should  have  been  established  had  the  Roman 
people  wished  to  create  a  democratic  state.  But  the  senate 
and  the  property  classes  had  forestalled  them  from  that  career. 

One  of  the  first  acts  ascribed  to  Servius  was  the  institution 
of  the  census.  Livy  pronounces  the  census  a  most  salutary 
measure  for  an  empire  about  to  become  so  great,  according  to 
which  the  duties  of  peace  and  of  war  were  to  be  performed, 
not  individually  as  before,  but  according  to  the  measure  of  per- 
sonal wealth.^  Each  person  was  required  to  enroll  himself  in 
the  ward  of  his  residence,  with  a  statement  of  the  amount  of 
his  property.  It  was  done  in  the  presence  of  the  censor;  and 
the  lists  when  completed  furnished  the  basis  upon  which  the 
classes  were  formed.^     This  was  accompanied  by  a  very  re- 

1  Censum  enim  instituit,  rem  salubenimam  tanto  futuro  imperio  :   ex  quo  belli 
pacisque  munia  non  viritim,  ut  ante,  sed  pro  habitu  pecuniarum  ficrent. — Livy,  i,  42. 

2  Dionysiiis,  iv,  15. 


INSTITUTION  OF  ROMAN  POLITICAL  SOCIETY.     337 

markable  act  for  the  period,  the  creation  of  four  city  wards,  cir- 
cumscribed by  boundaries,  and  distinguished  by  appropriate 
names.  In  point  of  time  it  was  earHer  than  the  institution  of 
the  Attic  deme  by  Cleisthenes;  but  the  two  were  quite  differ- 
ent in  their  relations  to  the  government.  The  Attic  deme,  as 
has  been  shown,  was  organized  as  a  body  poHtic  with  a  similar 
registry  of  citizens  and  of  their  property,  and  having  besides  a 
complete  local  self-government,  with  an  elective  magistracy, 
judiciary  and  priesthood.  On  the  other  hand,  the  Roman 
ward  was  a  geographical  area,  with  a  registry  of  citizens  and 
of  their  property,  with  a  local  organization,  a  tribune  and  other 
elective  offices,  and  with  an  assembly.  For  a  limited  number 
of  special  objects  the  inhabitants  of  the  wards  were  dealt  with 
by  the  government  through  their  territorial  relations.  But  the 
gov^ernment  of  the  ward  did  not  possess  the  solid  attributes  of 
that  of  the  Attic  deme.  It  was  a  nearer  copy  of  the  previous 
Athenian  naucrary,  which  not  unlikely  furnished  the  model,  as 
the  Solonian  classes  did  of  the  Servian.  Dionysius  remarks, 
that  after  Servius  Tullius  had  inclosed  the  seven  hills  with  one 
wall  he  divided  the  city  into  four  parts,  and  gave  the  names  of 
the  hills  to  the  re-divisions:  to  the  first,  Palatina,  to  the  sec- 
ond, Suburra,  to  the  third,  CoUina,  and  to  the  fourth,  Esqui- 
lina;  and  made  the  city  consist  of  four  parts,  which  before  con- 
sisted of  three;  and  he  ordered  the  people  who  dwelt  in  each 
of  the  four  regions,  like  villagers,  not  to  take  any  other  dwell- 
ing, nor  to  pay  taxes  elsewhere,  nor  give  in  their  names  as  sol- 
diers elsewhere,  nor  pay  their  assessments  for  military  purposes 
and  other  needs,  which  each  must  furnish  for  the  common  wel- 
fare; for  these  things  were  no  longer  to  be  done  according  to 
the  three  consanguine  tribes  iyqjvXai  rag  yeviMai),  but  accord- 
ing to  the  four  local  tribes  {(pvXd^  ra?  TOTCixa?),  which  last 
had  been  arranged  by  himself;  and  he  appointed  commanders 
over  each  tribe,  as  phylarchs  or  comarchs,  whom  he  directed 
to  note  what  house  each  inhabited.^  Mommsen  observes  that 
"each  of  these  four  levy-districts  had  to  furnish  the  fourth  part 
not  only  of  the  force  as  a  whole,  but  of  each  of  its  military 
subdivisions,  so  that  each  legion  and  each  century  numbered  an 

'  Dionysius,  iv,  14. 


338 


ANCIENT  SOCIETY. 


equal  proportion  of  conscripts  from  each  region;  evidently  for 
the  purpose  of  merging  all  distinctions  of  a  gentile  and  local 
nature  in  one  common  levy  of  the  community,  and  especially 
of  binding,  through  the  powerful  leveling  influence  of  the  mil- 
itary spirit,  the  mctcoci  and  the  burgesses  into  one  people."^ 

In  like  manner,  the  surrounding  country  under  the  govern- 
ment of  Rome  was  organized  in  townships  {tribits  riisticac), 
the  number  of  which  is  stated  at  twenty-six  by  some  writers, 
and  at  thirty-one  by  others;  making,  with  the  four  city  wards, 
a  total  of  thirty  in  one  case,  and  of  thirty- five  in  the  other.^ 
The  total  number  was  never  increased  beyond  thirty-five. 
These  townships  did  not  become  integral  in  the  sense  of  par- 
ticipating in  the  administration  of  the  government. 

As  finally  established  under  the  Servian  constitution,  the 
government  v/as  cast  in  the  form  in  which  it  remained  during 
the  existence  of  the  republic;  the  consuls  taking  the  place  of 
the  previous  military  commanders.  It  was  not  based  upon 
territory  in  the  exclusive  sense  of  the  Athenian  government,  or 
in  the  modern  sense;  ascending  from  the  township  or  ward, 
the  unit  of  organization,  to  the  county  or  arrondissement,  and 
from  the  latter  to  the  state,  each  organized  and  invested  with 
governmental  functions  as  constituents  of  a  whole.  The  cen- 
tral government  overshadowed  and  atrophied  the  parts.  It 
rested  more  upon  property  than  upon  territory,  this  being  made 
the  commanding  element,  as  is  shown  by  the  lodgment  of  the 
controlling  power  of  the  government  in  the  highest  property 
classes.  It  had,  nevertheless,  a  territorial  basis  as  well,  since  it 
recognized  and  used  territorial  subdivisions  for  citizenship,  and 
for  financial  and  military  objects,  in  which  the  citizen  was  dealt 
with  through  his  territorial  relations. 

The  Romans  were  now  carried  fairly  out  of  gentile  society 
into  and  under  the  second  great  plan  of  government,  founded 
upon  territory  and  upon  property.  They  had  left  gentilism 
and  barbarism  behind  them,  and  entered  upon  a  new  career  of 

>  History  of  Rome,  I.  c,  Scribner's  ed.,  i,  136. 

^  Diony silts,  iv,  15  ;  Niebuhr  has  furnished  the  names  of  sixteen  country  town- 
ships, as  follows :  Aemilian,  Camilian,  Cluentian,  Cornelian,  Fabian,  Galerian, 
Horatian,  Lemonian,  Menenian,  Papcrian,  Romilian,  Sergian,  Veturnian,  Claud- 
ian. — Hist,  of  Rome,  i,  320,  7iote. 


INSTITUTION  OF  ROMAN  POLITICAL  SOCIETY. 


339 


civilization.  Henceforth  the  creation  and  protection  of  prop- 
erty became  the  primary  objects  of  the  government,  with  a  su- 
peradded career  of  conquest  for  domination  over  distant  tribes 
and  nations.  This  great  change  of  institutions,  creating  poHt- 
ical  society  as  distinguished  from  gentile  society,  was  simply 
the  introduction  of  the  new  elements  of  territory  and  property, 
making  the  latter  a  power  in  the  government,  which  before  had 
been  simply  an  influence.  Had  the  wards  and  rustic  town- 
ships been  organized  with  full  powers  of  local  self-government, 
and  the  senate  been  made  elective  by  these  local  constituencies 
without  distinction  of  classes,  the  resulting  government  would 
have  been  a  democracy,  like  the  Athenian;  for  these  local  gov- 
ernments would  have  moulded  the  state  into  their  own  likeness. 
The  senate,  with  the  hereditary  rank  it  conferred,  and  the  prop- 
erty basis  qualifying  the  voting  power  in  the  assembly  of  the 
people,  turned  the  scale  against  democratical  institutions,  and 
produced  a  mixed  government,  partly  aristocratic  and  partly 
democratic;  eminently  calculated  to  engender  perpetual  ani- 
mosity between  the  two  classes  of  citizens  thus  deliberately  and 
unnecessarily  created  by  affirmative  legislation.  It  is  plain,  I 
think,  that  the  people  were  circumvented  by  the  Servian  con- 
stitution, and  had  a  government  put  upon  them  which  the  ma- 
jority would  have  rejected  had  they  fully  comprehended  its 
probable  results.  The  evidence  is  conclusive  of  the  antecedent 
democratical  principles  of  the  gentes,  which,  however  exclusive 
as  against  all  persons  not  in  their  communion,  were  carried  out 
fully  among  themselves.  The  evidence  of  this  free  spirit  and 
of  their  free  institutions  is  so  decisive  that  the  proposition  else- 
where stated,  that  gentilism  is  incompatible  with  monarchy, 
seems  to  be  incontrovertible. 

As  a  whole,  the  Roman  government  was  anomalous.  The 
overshadowing  municipality  of  Rome,  made  the  centre  of  the 
state  in  its  plan  of  government,  was  one  of  the  producing 
causes  of  its  novel  character.  The  primary  organization  of  the 
people  into  an  army  with  the  military  spirit  it  fostered  created 
the  cohesive  force  which  held  the  republic  together,  and  after- 
wards the  empire.  With  a  selective  senate  holding  office  for 
hfe,  and  possessing  substantial  powers;  with  a  personal  rank 


340  ANCIENT  SOCIETY. 

passing  to  their  children  and  descendants;  with  an  elective  mag- 
istracy graded  to  the  needs  of  a  central  metropolis;  with  an 
assembly  of  the  people  organized  into  property  classes,  pos- 
sessing an  unequal  suffrage,  but  holding  both  an  affirmative 
and  a  negative  upon  all  legislation;  and  with  an  elaborate  mil- 
itary organization,  no  other  government  strictly  analogous  has 
appeared  among  men.  It  was  artificial,  illogical,  approaching 
a  monstrosity;  but  capable  of  wonderful  achievements,  because 
of  its  military  spirit,  and  because  the  Romans  were  endowed 
with  remarkable  powers  for  organizing  and  managing  affairs. 
The  patchwork  in  its  composition  was  the  product  of  the  su- 
perior craft  of  the  wealthy  classes  who  intended  to  seize  the 
substance  of  power  while  they  pretended  to  respect  the  rights 
and  interests  of  all. 

When  the  new  political  system  became  established,  the  old 
one  did  not  immediately  disappear.  The  functions  of  the  sen- 
ate and  of  the  military  commander  remained  as  before;  but 
the  property  classes  took  the  place  of  the  gentes,  and  the  assem- 
bly of  the  classes  took  the  place  of  the  assembly  of  the  gentes. 
Radical  as  the  changes  were,  they  were  limited,  in  the  main,  to 
these  particulars,  and  came  in  Avithout  friction  or  violence. 
The  old  assembly  (coviitia  curiata)  was  allowed  to  retain  a 
portion  of  its  powers,  which  kept  alive  for  a  long  period  of 
time  the  organizations  of  the  gentes,  curias  and  consanguine 
tribes.  It  still  conferred  the  inipcritivi  upon  all  the  higher 
magistrates  after  their  election  was  completed,  though  in  time 
it  became  a  matter  of  form  merely;  it  inaugurated  certain 
priests,  and  regulated  the  religious  observances  of  the  curiae. 
This  state  of  things  continued  down  to  the  time  of  the  first 
Punic  war,  after  which  the  coviitia  curiata  lost  its  importance 
and  soon  fell  into  oblivion.  Both  the  assembly  and  the  curiae 
were  superseded  rather  than  abolished,  and  died  out  from  in- 
anition ;  but  the  gentes  remained  far  into  the  empire,  not  as  an 
organization,  for  that  also  died  out  in  time,  but  as  a  pedigree 
and  a  lineage.  Thus  the  transition  from  gentile  into  political 
society  was  gradually  but  effectually  accomplished,  and  the 
second  great  plan  of  human  government  was  substituted  by 
the  Romans  in  the  place  of  the  first  which  had  prevailed  from 
time  immemorial. 


INSTITUTION  OF  ROMAN  POLITICAL  SOCIETY.    341 

After  an  immensely  protracted  duration,  running  back  of 
the  separate  existence  of  the  Aryan  family,  and  received  by 
the  Latin  tribes  from  their  remote  ancestors,  the  gentile  organ- 
ization finally  surrendered  its  existence,  among  the  Romans,  to 
to  the  demands  of  civilization.  It  had  held  exclusive  posses- 
sion of  society  through  these  several  ethnical  periods,  and  un- 
til it  had  won  by  experience  all  the  elements  of  civilization, 
which  it  then  proved  unable  to  manage.  Mankind  owe  a  debt 
of  gratitude  to  their  savage  ancestors  for  devising  an  institution 
able  to  carry  the  advancing  portion  of  the  human  race  out  of 
savagery  into  barbarism,  and  through  the  successive  stages  of 
the  latter  into  civilization.  It  also  accumulated  by  experience 
the  intelligence  and  knowledge  necessary  to  devise  political 
society  while  the  institution  yet  remained.  It  holds  a  position 
on  the  great  chart  of  human  progress  second  to  none  in  its  in- 
fluence, in  its  achievements  and  in  its  history.  As  a  plan  of 
government,  the  gentile  organization  was  unequal  to  the  wants 
of  civilized  man;  but  it  is  something  to  be  said  in  its  remem- 
brance that  it  developed  from  the  germ  the  principal  govern- 
mental institutions  of  modern  civilized  states.  Among  others, 
as  before  stated,  out  of  the  ancient  council  of  chiefs  came  the 
modern  senate;  out  of  the  ancient  assembly  of  the  people  came 
the  modern  representative  assembly,  the  two  together  consti- 
tuting the  modern  legislature;  out  of  the  ancient  general  mil- 
itary commander  came  the  modern  chief  magistrate,  whether 
a  feudal  or  constitutional  king,  an  emperor  or  a  president,  the 
latter  being  the  natural  and  logical  result;  and  out  of  the  an- 
cient ciistos  ui'bis,  by  a  circuitous  derivation,  came  the  Roman 
praetor  and  the  modern  judge.  Equal  rights  and  privileges, 
personal  freedom  and  the  cardinal  principles  of  democracy 
were  also  inherited  from  the  Rentes.  When  property  had  be- 
come created  in  masses,  and  its  influence  and  power  began  to 
be  felt  in  society,  slavery  came  in;  an  institution  violative  of 
all  these  principles,  but  sustained  by  the  selfish  and  delusive 
consideration  that  the  person  made  a  slave  was  a  stranger  in 
blood  and  a  captive  enemy.  With  property  also  came  in  grad- 
ually the  principle  of  aristocracy,  striving  for  the  creation  of 
privileged  classes.     The  element  of  property,  which  has  con- 


342 


ANCIENT  SOCIETY. 


trolled  society  to  a  great  extent  during  the  comparatively  short 
period  of  civilization,  has  given  mankind  despotism,  imperialism, 
monarchy,  privileged  classes,  and  finally  representative  democ- 
racy. It  has  also  made  the  career  of  the  civilized  nations  essen- 
tially a  property-making  career.  But  when  the  intelligence  of 
mankind  rises  to  the  height  of  the  great  question  of  the  abstract 
rights  of  property, — including  the  relations  of  property  to  the 
state,  as  well  as  the  rights  of  persons  to  property, — a  modifi- 
cation of  the  present  order  of  things  may  be  expected.  The 
nature  of  the  coming  changes  it  may  be  impossible  to  conceive; 
but  it  seems  probable  that  democracy,  once  universal  in  a  ru- 
dimentary form  and  repressed  in  many  civilized  states,  is  des- 
tined to  become  again  universal  and  supreme. 

An  American,  educated  in  the  principles  of  democracy,  and 
profoundly  impressed  with  the  dignity  and  grandeur  of  those 
great  conceptions  which  recognize  the  liberty,  equality  and  fra- 
ternity of  mankind,  may  give  free  expression  to  a  preference  for 
self-government  and  free  institutions.  At  the  same  time  the 
equal  rights  of  every  other  person  must  be  recognized  to  accept 
and  approve  any  form  of  government,  whether  imperial  or 
monarchical,  that  satisfies  his  preferences. 


CHAPTER  XIV. 

CHANGE    OF    DESCENT    FROM    THE    FEMALE    TO    THE    MALE 

LINE, 

How   THE    CHANGE    MIGHT    HAVE    BEEN    MADE. — INHERITANCE    OF    PROPERTY 

THE  Motive. — Descent  in  the  Female  Line  among  the  Lycians. — The 
Cretans. — The  Etruscans. — Probably  among  the  Athenians  in  the  time 
of  Cecrops. — The  Hundred  Families  of  the  Locrians. — Evidence  from 
Marriages. — Turanian  System  of  Consanguinity  among  Grecian  Tribes. 
— Legend  of  the  Danaid.^ 

An  important  question  remains  to  be  considered,  namely: 
whether  any  evidence  exists  that  descent  Avas  anciently  in  the 
female  line  in  the  Grecian  and  Latin  gentes.  Theoretically,  this 
must  have  been  the  fact  at  some  anterior  period  among  their  re- 
mote ancestors;  but  we  are  not  compelled  to  rest  the  question 
upon  theory  alone.  Since  a  change  to  the  male  line  involved 
a  nearly  total  alteration  of  the  membership  in  a  gens,  a  method 
by  which  it  might  have  been  accomplished  should  be  pointed 
out.  More  than  this,  it  should  be  shown,  if  possible,  that  an  ad- 
equate motive  requiring  the  change  was  certain  to  arise,  with 
the  progress  of  society  out  of  the  condition  in  which  this  form 
of  descent  originated.  And  lastly,  the  existing  evidence  of  an- 
cient descent  in  the  female  line  among  them  should  be  pre- 
sented. 

A  gens  in  the  archaic  period,  as  we  have  seen,  consisted  of  a 
supposed  female  ancestor  and  her  children,  together  with  the 
children  of  her  daughters,  and  of  her  female  descendants  through 
females  in  perpetuity.     The  children  of  her  sons,  and  of  her  male 


344 


ANCIENT  SOCIETY, 


descendants,  through  males,  were  excluded.  On ,  the  other 
hand,  with  descent  in  the  male  line,  a  gens  consisted  of  a  sup- 
posed male  ancestor  and  his  children,  together  with  the  children 
of  his  sons  and  of  his  male  descendants  through  males  in  per- 
petuity. The  children  of  his  daughters,  and  of  his  female 
descendants,  through  females,  were  excluded.  Those  excluded 
in  the  first  case  would  be  members  of  the  gens  in  the  second 
case,  and  vice  versa.  The  question  then  arises,  how  could 
descent  be  changed  from  the  female  line  to  the  male  without 
the  destruction  of  the  gens? 

The  method  was  simple  and  natural,  provided  the  motive  to 
make  the  change  was  general,  urgent  and  commanding.  When 
done  at  a  given  time,  and  by  preconcerted  determination,  it 
was  only  necessary  to  agree  that  all  the  present  members  of  the 
gens  should  remain  members,  but  that  in  future  all  children, 
whose  fathers  belonged  to  the  gens,  should  alone  remain  in  it 
and  bear  the  gentile  name,  while  the  children  of  its  female 
members  should  be  excluded.  This  would  not  break  or  change 
the  kinship  or  relations  of  the  existing  gentiles;  but  thereafter 
it  would  retain  in  the  gens  the  children  it  before  excluded,  and 
exclude  those  it  before  retained.  Although  it  may  seem  a 
hard  problem  to  solve,  the  pressure  of  an  adequate  motive 
would  render  it  easy,  and  the  lapse  of  a  few  generations  would 
make  it  complete.  As  a  practical  question,  it  has  been  changed 
from  the  female  line  to  the  male  among  the  American  aborig- 
ines in  a  number  of  instances.  Thus,  among  the  Ojibwas  de- 
scent is  now  in  the  male  line,  while  among  their  congeners,  the 
Delawares  and  Mohegans,  it  is  still  in  the  female  line.  Origi- 
nally, without  a  doubt,  descent  was  in  the  female  line  in  the 
entire  Algonkin  stock. 

Since  descent  in  the  female  line  is  archaic,  and  more  in  ac- 
cordance with  the  early  condition  of  ancient  society  than  de- 
scent in  the  male  line,  there  is  a  presumption  in  favor  of  its 
ancient  prevalence  in  the  Grecian  and  Latin  gentes.  More- 
over, when  the  archaic  form  of  any  transmitted  organization 
has  been  discovered  and  verified,  it  is  impossible  to  conceive  of 
its  origination  in  the  later  more  advanced  form. 

Assuming  a  change  of  descent  among  them  from  the  female 


CHANGE  OF  DESCENT.  345 

line  to  the  male,  it  must  have  occurred  very  remotely  from  the 
historical  period.  Their  history  in  the  Middle  Status  of  bar- 
barism is  entirely  lost,  except  it  has  been  in  some  measure  pre- 
served in  their  arts,  institutions  and  inventions,  and  in  improve- 
ments in  language.  The  Upper  Status  has  the  superadded 
light  of  tradition  and  of  the  Homeric  poems  to  acquaint  us 
with  its  experience  and  the  measure  of  progress  then  made. 
But  judging  from  the  condition  in  which  their  traditions  place 
them,  it  seems  probable  that  descent  in  the  female  line  had  not 
entirely  disappeared,  at  least  among  the  Pelasgian  and  Grecian 
tribes,  when  they  entered  the  Upper  Status  of  barbarism. 

When  descent  was  in  the  female  line  in  the  Grecian  and 
Latin  gentes,  the  gens  possessed  the  following  among  other 
characteristics:  I.  Marriage  in  the  gens  was  prohibited;  thus 
placing  children  in  a  different  gens  from  that  of  their  reputed 
father.  2.  Property  and  the  office  of  chief  were  hereditary  in 
the  gens;  thus  excluding  children  from  inheriting  the  property 
or  succeeding  to  the  office  of  their  reputed  father.  This  state 
of  things  would  continue  until  a  motive  arose  sufficiently  gen- 
eral and  commanding  to  establish  the  injustice  of  this  exclusion 
in  the  face  of  their  changed  condition. 

The  natural  remedy  was  a  change  of  descent  from  the  female 
line  to  the  male.  All  that  was  needed  to  effect  the  change  was 
an  adequate  motive.  After  domestic  animals  began  to  be 
reared  in  flocks  and  herds,  becoming  thereby  a  source  of  sub- 
sistence as  well  as  objects  of  individual  property,  and  after  tillage 
had  led  to  the  ownership  of  houses  and  lands  in  severalty,  an  an- 
tagonism would  be  certain  to  arise  against  the  prevailing  form  of 
gentile  inheritance,  because  it  excluded  the  owner's  children, 
whose  paternity  was  becoming  more  assured,  and  gave  his  prop- 
erty to  his  gentile  kindred.  A  contest  for  a  new  rule  of  inher- 
itance, shared  in  by  fathers  and  their  children,  would  furnish  a 
motive  sufficiently  powerful  to  effect  the  change.  With  prop- 
erty accumulating  in  masses  and  assuming  permanent  forms, 
and  with  an  increased  proportion  of  it  held  by  individual  own- 
ership, descent  in  the  female  line  was  certain  of  overthrow,  and 
the  substitution  of  the  male  line  equally  assured.  Such  a  change 
would  leave  the  inheritance  in  the  gens  as  before,  but  it  would 


346  ANCIENT  SOCIETY. 

place  children  in  the  gens  of  their  father,  and  at  the  head  of 
the  agnatic  kindred.  For  a  time,  in  all  probability,  they  would 
share  in  the  distribution  of  the  estate  with  the  remaining  ag- 
nates; but  an  extension  of  the  principle  by  which  the  agnates  cut 
off  the  remaining  gentiles,  would  in  time  result  in  the  exclusion 
of  the  agnates  beyond  the  children  and  an  exclusive  inheritance 
in  the  children.  Farther  than  this,  the  son  would  now  be  brought 
in  the  line  of  succession  to  the  office  of  his  father. 

Such  had  the  law  of  inheritance  become  in  the  Athenian  gens 
in  the  time  of  Solon  or  shortly  after;  when  the  property  passed 
to  the  sons  equally,  subject  to  the  obligation  of  maintaining  the 
daughters,  and  of  apportioning  them  in  marriage;  and  in  default 
of  sons,  to  the  daughters  equally.  If  there  were  no  children, 
then  the  inheritance  passed  to  the  agnatic  kindred,  and  in  de- 
fault of  the  latter,  to  the  gentiles.  The  Roman  law  of  the  Twelve 
Tables  was  substantially  the  same. 

It  seems  probable  further,  that  when  descent  was  changed 
to  the  male  line,  or  still  earlier,  animal  names  for  the  gentes  were 
laid  aside  and  personal  names  substituted  in  their  place.  The 
individuality  of  persons  would  assert  itself  more  and  more  with 
the  progress  of  society,  and  with  the  increase  and  individual 
ownership  of  property,  leading  to  the  naming  of  the  gens  after 
some  ancestral  hero.  Although  new  gentes  were  being  formed 
from  time  to  time  by  the  process  of  segmentation,  and  others 
were  dying  out,  the  lineage  of  a  gens  reached  back  through 
hundreds  not  to  say  thousands  of  years.  After  the  supposed 
substitution,  the  eponymous  ancestor  would  have  been  a  shift- 
ing person,  at  long  intervals  of  time,  some  later  person  distin- 
guished in  the  history  of  the  gens  being  put  in  his  place,  when 
the  knowledge  of  the  former  person  became  obscured,  and  faded 
from  view  in  the  misty  past.  That  the  more  celebrated  Grecian 
gentes  made  the  change  of  names,  and  made  it  gracefully,  is 
shown  by  the  fact,  that  they  retained  the  name  of  the  mother 
of  their  gentile  father,  and  ascribed  his  birth  to  her  embrace- 
ment  by  some  particular  god.  Thus  Eumolpus,  the  eponymous 
ancestor  of  the  Attic  Eumolpidae,  was  the  reputed  son  of  Nept- 
une and  Chione;  but  even  the  Grecian  gens  was  older  than  the 
conception  of  Neptune. 


CHANGE  OF  DESCENT. 


347 


Recurring  now  to  the  main  question,  the  absence  of  direct 
proof  of  ancient  descent  in  the  female  hne  in  the  Grecian  and 
Latin  gentes  would  not  silence  the  presumption  in  its  favor; 
but  it  so  happens  that  this  form  of  descent  remained  in  some 
tribes  nearly  related  to  the  Greeks  with  traces  of  it  in  a  number 
of  Grecian  tribes. 

The  inquisitive  and  observing  Herodotus  found  one  nation, 
the  Lycians,  Pelasgian  in  lineage,  but  Grecian  in  affiliation, 
among  whom  in  his  time  (440  B.  C),  descent  was  in  the  female 
line.  After  remarking  that  the  Lycians  were  sprung  from 
Crete,  and  stating  some  particulars  of  their  migration  to  Lycia 
under  Sarpedon,  he  proceeds  as  follows:  "Their  customs  are 
partly  Cretan  and  partly  Carian.  They  have,  however,  one 
singular  custom  in  which  they  differ  from  every  other  nation 
in  the  world.  Ask  a  Lycian  who  he  is,  and  he  answers  by 
giving  his  own  name,  that  of  his  mother,  and  so  on  in  the  fe- 
male line.  Moreover,  if  a  free  woman  marry  a  man  who  is  a 
slave,  their  children  are  free  citizens;  but  if  a  free  man  marry 
a  foreign  woman,  or  cohabit  with  a  concubine,  even  though  he 
be  the  first  person  in  the  state,  the  children  forfeit  all  the  rights 
of  citizenship."  ^  It  follows  necessarily  from  this  circumstantial 
statement  that  the  Lycians  were  organized  in  gentes,  with  a 
prohibition  against  intermarriage  in  the  gens,  and  that  the  chil- 
dren belonged  to  the  gens  of  their  mother.  It  presents  a  clear 
exemplification  of  a  gens  in  the  archaic  form,  with  confirmatory 
tests  of  the  consequences  of  a  marriage  of  a  Lycian  man  with 
a  foreign  woman,  and  of '^  Lycian  woman  with  a  slave.^  The 
aborigines  of  Crete  were  Pelasgian,  Hellenic  and  Semitic  tribes, 
living  locally  apart.  Minos,  the  brother  of  Sarpedon,  is  usually 
regarded  as  the  head  of  the  Pelasgians  in  Crete;  but  the  Lycians 
were  already  Hellenized  in  the  time  of  Herodotus  and  quite 
conspicuous  among  the  Asiatic  Greeks  for  their  advancement. 
The  insulation  of   their   ancestors  upon  the   island  of    Crete, 

*  Rawlinson's  HerQdohis,  i,  173. 

*  If  a  Seneca-Iroquois  man  marries  a  foreign  woman  their  children  are  aliens; 
but  if  a  Seneca-Iroquois  woman  marries  an  alien,  or  an  Onondaga,  their  children 
are  Iroquois  of  the  Seneca  tribe ;  and  of  the  gens  and  phratry  of  their  mother. 
The  woman  confers  her  nationality  and  her  gens  upon  her  children,  whoever  may 
be  their  father. 


348  ANCIENT  SOCIETY. 

prior  to  their  migration  in  the  legendary  period  to  Lycia,  may 
afford  an  explanation  of  their  retention  of  descent  in  the  female 
line  to  this  late  period. 

Among  the  Etruscans  also  the  same  rule  of  descent  prevail- 
ed. "It  is  singular  enough,"  observes  Cramer,  "that  two  cus- 
toms peculiar  to  the  Etruscans,  as  we  discover  from  their  mon- 
uments, should  have  been  noticed  by  Herodotus  as  characteris- 
tic of  the  Lycians  and  Caunians  of  Asia  Minor.  The  first  is, 
that  the  Etruscans  invariably  describe  their  parentage  and  fam- 
ily with  reference  to  the  mother,  and  not  the  father.  The 
other,  that  they  admitted  their  wives  to  their  feasts  and  ban- 
quets."^ 

Curtius  comments  on  Lycian,  Etruscan  and  Cretan  descent 
in  the  female  line  in  the  following  language:  "It  would  be  an 
error  to  understand  the  usage  in  question  as  an  homage  to  the 
female  sex.  It  is  rather  rooted  in  primitive  conditions  of  so- 
ciety, in  which  monogamy  was  not  yet  established  with  suffi- 
cient certainty  to  enable  descent  upon  the  father's  side  to  be 
affirmed  with  assurance.  Accordingly  the  usage  extends  far 
beyond  the  territory  commanded  by  the  Lycian  nationality. 
It  occurs,  even  to  this  day,  in  India;  it  may  be  demonstrated 
to  have  existed  among  the  ancient  Egyptians;  it  is  mentioned 
by  Sanchoniathon  (p.  i6,  Orell),  where  the  reasons  for  its  exist- 
ence are  stated  with  great  freedom;  and  beyond  the  confines 
of  the  East  it  appears  among  the  Etruscans,  among  the  Cre- 
tans, who  were  so  closely  connected  with  the  Lycians,  and  who 
called  their  father-land  mother-land;  and  among  the  Athenians, 
consult  Bachofen,  etc.  Accordingly,  if  Herodotus  regards  the 
usage  in  question  as  thoroughly  peculiar  to  the  Lycians,  it 
must  have  maintained  itself  longest  among  them  of  all  the  na- 
tions related  to  the  Greeks,  as  is  also  proved  by  the  Lycian  in- 
scriptions. Hence  we  must  in  general  regard  the  employment 
of  the  maternal  name  for  a  designation  of  descent  as  the  re- 
mains of  an  imperfect  condition  of  social  life  and  family  law, 
which,  as  life  becomes  more  regulated,  was  relinquished  in 
favor  of  usages,  afterwards  universal  in  Greece,  of  naming  chil- 
dren after  the  father.     This  diversity  of  usages,  which  is  ex- 

'  Descriplion  of  Ancient  Italy,  i,  153;  citing  Lanzi,  ii,  314. 


CHANGE  OF  DESCENT.  349 

tremely  important  for  the  history  of  ancient  civilization,  has 
been  recently  discussed  by  Bachofen  in  his  address  above 
named. "^ 

In  a  work  of  vast  research,  Bachofen  has  collected  and  dis- 
cussed the  evidence  of  female  authority  (mother-right)  and  of 
female  rule  (gyneocracy)  among  the  Lycians,  Cretans,  Athe- 
nians, Lemnians,  Egyptians,  Orchomenians,  Locrians,  Lesbi- 
ans, Mantineans,  and  among  eastern  Asiatic  nations.^  The 
condition  of  ancient  society,  thus  brought  under  review,  requires 
for  its  full  explanation  the  existence  of  the  gens  in  its  archaic 
form  as  the  source  of  the  phenomena.  This  would  bring  the 
mother  and  her  children  into  the  same  gens,  and  in  the  com- 
position of  the  communal  household,  on  the  basis  of  gens, 
would  give  the  gens  of  the  mothers  the  ascendency  in  the 
household.  The  family,  which  had  probably  attained  the  syn- 
dyasmian  form,  was  still  environed  with  the  remains  of  that 
conjugal  system  which  belonged  to  a  still  earlier  condition. 
Such  a  family,  consisting  of  a  married  pair  with  their  children, 
would  naturally  have  sought  shelter  with  kindred  families  in  a 
communal  household,  in  which  the  several  mothers  and  their 
children  would  be  of  the  same  gens,  and  the  reputed  fathers  of 
these  children  would  be  of  other  gentes.  Common  lands  and 
joint  tillage  would  lead  to  joint-tenement  houses  and  commu- 
nism in  living;  so  that  gyneocracy  seems  to  require  for  its  crea- 
tion, descent  in  the  female  line.  Women  thus  entrenched  in 
large  households,  supplied  from  common  stores,  in  which  their 
own  gens  so  largely  predominated  in  numbers,  would  produce 
the  phenomena  of  mother  right  and  gyneocracy,  which  Bach- 
ofen has  detected  and  traced  with  the  aid  of  fragments  of 

'  History  of  Greece,  Scribner  &  Armstrong's  ed. ,  Ward's  Trans.,  i,  94,  note. 
The  Etiocretes,  of  whom  Minos  was  the  hero,  were  doubtless  Pelasgians.  They 
occupied  the  east  end  of  the  Island  of  Crete.  Sarpedon,  a  brother  of  Minos,  led 
the  emigrants  to  Lycia  where  they  displaced  the  Solymi,  a  Semitic  tribe  probably ; 
but  the  Lycians  had  become  Hellenized,  like  many  other  Pelasgian  tribes,  before 
the  time  of  Herodotus,  a  circumstance  quite  material  in  consequence  of  the  deriva- 
tion of  the  Grecian  and  Pelasgian  tribes  from  a  common  original  stock.  In  the 
time  of  Herodotus  the  Lycians  were  as  far  advanced  in  the  arts  of  life  as  the 
European  Greeks  (Curtius,  i,  93 ;  Grote,  i,  224).  It  seems  probable  that  descent 
in  the  female  line  was  derived  from  their  Pelasgian  ancestors. 

«  Das  Mutterrecht,  Stuttgart,  1S61. 


350  ANCIENT  SOCIETY. 

history  and  of  tradition.  Elsewhere  I  have  referred  to  the 
unfavorable  influence  upon  the  position  of  women  which  was 
produced  by  a  change  of  descent  from  the  female  line  to  the 
male,  and  by  the  rise  of  the  monogamian  family,  which  dis- 
placed the  joint-tenement  house,  and  in  the  midst  of  a  society 
purely  gentile,  placed  the  wife  and  mother  in  a  single  house 
and  separated  her  from  her  gentile  kindred.^ 

Monogamy  was  not  probably  established  among  the  Grecian 
tribes  until  after  they  had  attained  the  Upper  Status  of  barbarism; 
and  we  seem  to  arrive  at  chaos  in  the  marriage  relation  within 
this  period,  especially  in  the  Athenian  tribes.  Concerning  the 
latter,  Bachofen  remarks:  "For  before  the  time  of  Cecrops  the 
children,  as  we  have  seen,  had  only  a  mother,  no  father;  they 
were  of  one  line.  Bound  to  no  man  exclusively,  the  woman 
brought  only  spurious  children  into  the  world.  Cecrops  first 
made  an  end  of  this  condition  of  things;  led  the  lawless  union 
of  the  sexes  back  to  the  exclusiveness  of  marriage;  gave  to  the 
children  a  father  and  mother,  and  thus  from  being  of  one  line 
{iinilatcrcs)  made  them  of  two  lines  {bilatcres).'"^  What  is  here 
described  as  the  lawless  union  of  the  sexes  must  be  received 
with  modifications.  We  should  expect  at  that  comparatively 
late  day  to  find  the  syndyasmian  family,  but  attended  by  the  re- 
mains of  an  anterior  conjugal  system  which  sprang  from  mar- 
riages in  the  group.  The  punaluan  family,  which  the  state- 
ment fairly  implies,  must  have  disappeared  before  they  reached 
the  ethnical  period  named.  This  subject  will  be  considered  in 
subsequent  chapters  in  connection  with  the  growth  of  the  fam- 

There  is  an  interesting  reference  by  Polybius  to  the  hundred 
families  of  the  Locrians  of  Italy.      "The  Locrians  themselves," 

'  Bachofen,  speaking  of  the  Cretan  city  of  Lyktos,  remarks  that  "this  city  was 
considered  a  Lacedaemonian  colony,  and  as  also  related  to  the  Athenians.  It  was 
in  both  cases  only  on  the  mother's  side,  for  only  the  mothers  were  Spartans ;  the 
Athenian  relationship,  however,  goes  back  to  those  Athenian  women  whom  the 
Pelasgian  Tyrrhenians  are  said  to  have  enticed  away  from  the  Brauron  promon- 
tory."— Das  Mutterrecht,  ch.  13,  p.  31. 

With  descent  in  the  male  line  the  lineage  of  the  women  would  have  remained 
imnoticed ;  but  with  descent  in  the  female  line  the  colonists  would  have  given  their 
pedigrees  through  females  only. 

*  Das  Mutterrecht,  ch.  38,  p.  73. 


CHANGE  OF  DESCENT. 


351 


he  remarks,  "have  assured  me  that  their  own  traditions  are 
more  conformable  to  the  account  of  Aristotle  than  to  that  of  Ti- 
maeus.  Of  this  they  mention  the  following  proofs.  The  first  is, 
that  all  nobility  of  ancestry  among  them  is  derived  from  women, 
and  not  from  men.  That  those,  for  example,  alone  are  noble,  who 
derive  their  origin  from  the  hundred  families.  That  these  fami- 
lies were  noble  among  the  Locrians  before  they  migrated;  and 
were  the  same,  indeed,  from  which  a  hundred  virgins  were  taken 
by  lot,  as  the  oracle  had  commanded,  and  were  sent  to  Troy."^  It 
is  at  least  a  reasonable  supposition  that  the  rank  here  referred  to 
was  connected  with  the  office  of  chief  of  the  gens,  which  enno- 
bled the  particular  family  within  the  gens,  upon  one  of  the  mem- 
bers of  which  it  was  conferred.  If  this  supposition  is  tenable,  it 
implies  descent  in  the  female  line  both  as  to  persons  and  to  office. 
The  office  of  chief  was  hereditary  in  tlie  gens,  and  elective  among 
its  male  members  in  archaic  times;  and  with  descent  in  the  fe- 
male line,  it  would  pass  from  brother  to  brother,  and  from  uncle 
to  nephew.  But  the  office  in  each  case  passed  through  females, 
the  eligibility  of  the  person  depending  upon  the  gens  of  his 
mother,  who  gave  him  his  connection  with  the  gens,  and  with 
the  deceased  chief  whose  place  was  to  be  filled.  Wherever 
office  or  rank  runs  through  females,  it  requires  descent  in  the 
female  line  for  its  explanation. 

Evidence  of  ancient  descent  in  the  female  line  among  the  Gre- 
cian tribes  is  found  in  particular  marriages  which  occurred  in 
the  traditionary  period.  Thus  Salmoneus  and  Kretheus  were 
own  brothers,  the  sons  of  yEolus.  The  former  gave  his  daugh- 
ter Tyro  in  marriage  to  her  uncle.  With  descent  in  the  male 
line,  Kretheus  and  Tyro  would  have  been  of  the  same  gens,  and 
could  not  have  married  for  that  reason;  but  with  descent  in  the 
female  line,  they  would  have  been  of  different  gentes,  and 
therefore  not  of  gentile  kin.  Their  marriage  in  that  case 
would  not  have  violated  strict  gentile  usages.  It  is  immaterial 
that  the  persons  named  are  mythical,  because  the  legend  would 
apply  gentile  usages  correctly.  This  marriage  is  explainable 
on  the  hypothesis  of  descent  in  the  female  line,  which  in  turn 

'  Poly  bins,  xii,  extract  the  second,  Hampton's  Trans.,  iii,  242. 


352 


ANCIENT  SOCIETY. 


raises  a  presumption  of  its  existence  at  the  time,  or  as  justified 
by  their  ancient  usages  which  had  not  wholly  died  out. 

The  same  fact  is  revealed  by  marriages  within  the  historical 
period,  when  an  ancient  practice  seems  to  have  survived  the 
change  of  descent  to  the  male  line,  even  though  it  violated  the 
gentile  obligations  of  the  parties.  After  the  time  of  Solon  a 
brother  might  marry  his  half-sister,  provided  they  were  born 
of  different  mothers,  but  not  conversely.  With  descent  in  the 
female  line,  they  would  be  of  different  gentes,  and,  therefore,  not 
of  gentile  kin.  Their  marriage  would  interfere  with  no  gentile 
obligation.  But  with  descent  in  the  male  line,  which  was  the 
fact  when  the  cases  about  to  be  cited  occurred,  they  would  be 
of  the  same  gens,  and  consequently  under  prohibition.  Cimon 
married  his  half-sister,  Elpinice,  their  father  being  the  same, 
but  their  mothers  different.  In  the  Eubulidcs  of  Demosthenes 
we  find  a  similar  case.  "My  grandfather,"  says  Euxithius, 
"married  his  sister,  she  not  being  his  sister  by  the  same  moth- 
er." ^  Such  marriages,  against  which  a  strong  prejudice  had 
arisen  among  the  Athenians  as  early  as  the  time  of  Solon,  are 
explainable  as  a  survival  of  an  ancient  custom  with  respect  to 
marriage,  which  prevailed  when  descent  was  in  the  female  line, 
and  which  had  not  been  entirely  eradicated  in  the  time  of  De- 
mosthenes. 

Descent  in  the  female  line  presupposes  the  gens  to  distin- 
guish the  lineage.  With  our  present  knowledge  of  the  ancient 
and  modern  prevalence  of  the  gentile  organization  upon  five 
continents,  including  the  Australian,  and  of  the  archaic  consti- 
tution of  the  gens,  traces  of  descent  in  the  female  line  might 
be  expected  to  exist  in  traditions,  if  not  in  usages  coming  down 
to  historical  times.  It  is  not  supposable,  therefore,  that  the 
Lycians,  the  Cretans,  the  Athenians  and  the  Locrians,  if  the 
evidence  is  sufficient  to  include  the  last  two,  invented  a  usage 
so  remarkable  as  descent  in  the  female  line.  The  hypothesis 
that  it  was  the  ancient  law  of  the  Latin,  Grecian,  and  other 
Graeco-Italian  gentes  affords  a  more  rational  as  well  as  satis- 
factory explanation  of  the  facts.     The  influence  of  property  and 

1  ddeXqjijv  yap  6  Ttocitnoi  uv/ioi  eyipiEv  ovx  ot.io^n}rpiav. — Demos- 
thenes contra  Ebulides,  20. 


CHANGE  OF  DESCENT. 


353 


the  desire  to  transmit  it  to  children  furnished  adequate  motives 
for  the  change  to  the  male  line. 

It  may  be  inferred  that  marrying  out  of  the  gens  was  the 
rule  among  the  Athenians,  before  as  well  as  after  the  time  of 
Solon,  from  the  custom  of  registering  the  wife,  upon  her  mar- 
riage, in  the  phratry  of  her  husband,  and  the  children,  daughters 
as  well  as  sons,  in  the  gens  and  phratry  of  their  father.^  The 
fundamental  principle  on  which  the  gens  was  founded  was  the 
prohibition  of  intermarriage  among  its  members  as  consanguinei. 
In  each  gens  the  number  of  members  was  not  large.  Assuming 
sixty  thousand  as  the  number  of  registered  Athenians  in  the 
time  of  Solon,  and  dividing  them  equally  among  the  three 
hundred  and  sixty  Attic  gentes,  it  would  give  but  one  hundred 
and  sixty  persons  to  each  gens.  The  gens  was  a  great  family 
of  kindred  persons,  with  common  religious  rites,  a  common 
burial  place,  and,  in  general,  common  lands.  From  the  theory 
of  its  constitution,  intermarriage  would  be  disallowed.  With 
the  change  of  descent  to  the  male  line,  with  the  rise  of  monog- 
amy and  an  exclusive  inheritance  in  the  children,  and  with  the 
appearance  of  heiresses,  the  way  was  being  gradually  prepar- 
ed for  free  marriage  regardless  of  gens,  but  with  a  prohibition 
limited  to  certain  degrees  of  near  consanguinity.  Marriages 
in  the  human  family  began  in  the  group,  all  the  males  and  fe- 
males of  which,  excluding  the  children,  were  joint  husbands 
and  wives;  but  the  husbands  and  wives  were  of  different  gen- 
tes; and  it  ended  in  marriage  between  single  pairs,  with  an 
exclusive  cohabitation.  In  subsequent  chapters  an  attempt 
will  be  made  to  trace  the  several  forms  of  marriage  and  of  the 
family  from  the  first  stage  to  the  last. 

A  system  of  consanguinity  came  in  with  the  gens,  distin- 
guished as  the  Turanian  in  Asia,  and  as  the  Ganowanian  in 
America,  which  extended  the  prohibition  of  intermarriage  as 
far  as  the  relationship  of  brother  and  sister  extended  among 
collaterals.  This  .system  still  prevails  among  the  American 
aborigines,  in  portions  of  Asia  and  Africa,  and  in  Australia. 

'  Demosth. ,  Etibnl. ,  24 ;  In  his  time  the  registration  was  in  the  Deme ;  but  it 
would  show  who  were  the  phrators,  blood  relatives,  fellow  demots  and  gennetes 
of  the  person  registered;  as  Eu.xitheus  says,  XEyoo  cppdzEpdi,  dvyyeredt, 
djjuoTati,  yEvvrjtaii  }  vide  also  Hermann's  Folit.  Anliq.  of  Greece,  %.  lOO. 


354  ANCIENT  SOCIE  T Y. 

It  unquestionably  prevailed  among  the  Grecian  and  Latin 
tribes  in  the  same  anterior  period,  and  traces  of  it  remained 
down  to  the  traditionary  period.  One  feature  of  the  Turanian 
system  may  be  restated  as  follows:  the  children  of  brothers  are 
themselves  brothers  and  sisters,  and  as  such  could  not  inter- 
marry; the  children  of  sisters  stood  in  the  same  relationship, 
and  were  under  the  same  prohibition.  It  may  serve  to  explain 
the  celebrated  legend  of  the  Danaidae,  one  version  of  which 
furnished  to  Aeschylus  his  subject  for  the  tragedy  of  the  Sup- 
pliants. The  reader  will  remember  that  Danaus  and  ^Egyptus 
were  brothers,  and  descendants  of  Argive  lo.  The  former 
by  different  wives  had  fifty  daughters,  and  the  latter  by  differ- 
ent wives  had  fifty  sons ;  and  in  due  time  the  sons  of  ^gyptus 
sought  the  daughters  of  Danaus  in  marriage.  Under  the  sys- 
tem of  consanguinity  appertaining  to  the  gens  in  its  archaic 
form,  and  which  remained  until  superseded  by  the  system. in- 
troduced by  monogamy,  they,  were  brothers  and  sisters,  and 
for  that  reason  could  not  marry.  If  descent  at  the  time  was 
in  the  male  line,  the  children  of  Danaus  and  yEgyptus  would 
have  been  of  the  same  gens,  which  would  have  interposed 
an  additional  objection  to  their  marriage,  and  of  equal  weight 
Nevertheless  the  sons  of  ^gyptus  sought  to  overstep  these 
barriers  and  enforce  wedlock  upon  the  Danaidce;  whilst  the 
latter,  crossing  the  sea,  fled  from  Egypt  to  Argos  to  escape 
what  they  pronounced  an  unlawful  and  incestuous  union.  In 
the  Prometheus  of  the  same  author,  this  event  is  foretold  to 
lo  by  Prometheus,  namely:  that  in  the  fifth  generation  from 
her  future  son  Epaphus,  a  band  of  fifty  virgins  should  come  to 
Argos,  not  voluntarily,  but  fleeing  from  incestuous  wedlock 
with  the  sons  of  yEgyptus.^  Their  flight  with  abhorrence 
from  the  proposed  nuptials  finds  its  explanation  in  the  an- 
cient system  of  consanguinity,  independently  of  gentile  law. 
Apart  from  this  explanation  the  event  has  no  significance,  and 
their  aversion  to  the  marriages  would  have  been  mere  prudery. 
The  tragedy  of  the  Suppliants  is  founded  upon  the  incident 
of  their  flight  over  the  sea  to  Argos,  to  claim  the  protection  of 
their  Argive  kindred  against  the  proposed  violence  of  the  sons 

1  Prometheus,  853. 


CHANGE  OF  DESCENT.  355 

of  ^^gyptus,  who  pursued  them.  At  Argos  the  Danaidas  de- 
clare that  they  did  not  depart  from  Egypt  under  the  sentence 
of  banishment,  but  fled  from  men  of  common  descent  with 
themselves,  scorning  unholy  marriage  with  the  sons  of  ^gyp- 
tus.^  Their  reluctance  is  placed  exclusively  upon  the  fact  of 
kin,  thus  implying  an  existing  prohibition  against  such  mar- 
riages, which  they  had  been  trained  to  respect.  After  hearing 
the  case  of  the  Suppliants,  the  Argives  in  council  resolved  to 
afford  them  protection,  which  of  itself  implies  the  existence  of 
the  prohibition  of  the  marriages  and  the  validity  of  their  ob- 
jection. At  the  time  this  tragedy  was  produced,  Athenian  law 
permitted  and  even  required  marriage  between  the  children  of 
brothers  in  the  case  of  heiresses  and  female  orphans,  although 
the  rule  seems  to  have  been  confined  to  these  exceptional  cases; 
such  marriages,  therefore,  would  not  seem  to  the  Athenians 
either  incestuous  or  unlawful;  but  this  tradition  of  the  Danai- 
d^E  had  come  down  from  a  remote  antiquity,  and  its  whole  sig- 
nificance depended  upon  the  force  of  the  custom  forbidding  the 
nuptials.  The  turning-point  of  the  tradition  and  its  incidents 
was  their  inveterate  repugnance  to  the  proposed  marriages  as 
forbidden  by  law  and  custom.  No  other  reason  is  assigned, 
and  no  other  is  needed.  At  the  same  time  their  conduct  is 
intelligible  on  the  assumption  that  such  marriages  were  as  un- 
permissible  then,  as  marriage  between  a  brother  and  sister 
would  be  at  the  present  time.  The  attempt  of  the  sons  of 
/Egyptus  to  break  through  the  barrier  interposed  by  the  Tu- 
ranian system  of  consanguinity  may  mark  the  time  when  this 
system  was  beginning  to  give  way,  and  the  present  system, 
which  came  in  with  monogamy,  was  beginning  to  assert  itself, 
and  which  was  destined  to  set  aside  gentile  usages  and  Turan- 
ian consanguinity  by  the  substitution  of  fixed  degrees  as  the 
limits  of  prohibition. 

Upon  the  evidence  adduced  it  seems  probable  that  among 
the  Pelasgian,  Hellenic  and  Italian  tribes  descent  was  origin- 
ally in  the  female  line,  from  which,  under  the  influence  of  prop- 

'  aW  avroyersi  cpv^avopia, 
ydpLov  Aly-Ditvov  Ilaidoov  a6Ef5rJ  r' 
6yoTa'C,6fi£vai.  — Aeschylus,  Sajip.,  9. 


356  ANCIENT  SOCIETY. 

erty  and  inheritance,  it  was  changed  to  the  male  Hne.  Whether 
or  not  these  tribes  anciently  possessed  the  Turanian  system  of 
consanguinity,  the  reader  will  be  better  able  to  judge  after  that 
system  has  been  presented,  with  the  evidence  of  its  wide  prev- 
alence in  ancient  society. 

The  length  of  the  traditionary  period  of  these  tribes  is  of 
course  unknown  in  the  years  of  its  duration,  but  it  must  be 
measured  by  thousands  of  years.  It  probably  reached  back 
of  the  invention  of  the  process  of  smelting  iron  ore,  and  if  so, 
passed  through  the  Later  Period  of  barbarism  and  entered  the 
Middle  Period.  Their  condition  of  advancement  in  the  Middle 
Period  must  have  at  least  equaled  that  of  the  Aztecs,  Mayas 
and  Peruvians,  who  were  found  in  the  status  of  the  Middle  Pe- 
riod; and  their  condition  in  the  Later  Period  must  have  sur- 
passed immensely  that  of  the  Indian  tribes  named.  The  vast 
and  varied  experience  of  these  European  tribes  in  the  two  great 
ethnical  periods  named,  during  which  they  achieved  the  re- 
maining elements  of  civilization,  is  entirely  lost,  excepting  as  it 
is  imperfectly  disclosed  in  their  traditions,  and  more  fully  by 
their  acts  of  life,  their  customs,  language  and  institutions,  as  re- 
vealed to  us  by  the  poems  of  Homer.  Empires  and  kingdoms 
were  necessarily  unknown  in  these  periods;  but  tribes  and  in- 
considerable nations,  city  and  village  life,  the  growth  and  de- 
velopment of  the  arts  of  life,  and  physical,  mental  and  moral 
improvement,  were  among  the  particulars  of  that  progress. 
The  loss  of  the  events  of  these  great  periods  to  human  knowl- 
edge was  much  greater  than  can  easily  be  imagined. 


CHAPTER   XV. 

GENTES    IN    OTHER   TRIBES   OF   THE   HUMAN   FAMILY. 

The  Scottish  Clan. — The  Irish  Sept. — Germanic  Tribes. — Traces  of 
A  prior  Gentile  System.— Gentes  in  Southern  Asiatic  Tribes. — In 
Northern. — In  Uralian  Tribes. — Hundred  Families  of  Chinese. — He- 
brew Tribes. — Composed  of  Gentes  and  Phratries  Apparently. — Gentes 
IN  African  Tribes. — In  Australian  Tribes.  — Subdivisions  of  Fejees  and 
Pewas. — Wide  Distribution  of  Gentile  Organization. 

Having  considered  the  organization  into  gentes,  phra- 
tries and  tribes  in  their  archaic  as  well  as  later  form,  it 
remains  to  trace  the  extent  of  its  prevalence  in  the  human 
family,  and  particularly  with  respect  to  the  gens,  the  basis 
of  the  system. 

The  Celtic  branch  of  the  Aryan  family  retained,  in  the 
Scottish  clan  and  Irish  sept,  the  organization  into  gentes  to 
a  later  period  of  time  than  any  other  branch  of  the  family, 
unless  the  Aryans  of  India  are  an  exception.  The  Scottish 
clan  in  particular  was  existing  in  remarkable  vitality  in  the 
Highlands  of  Scotland  in  the  middle  of  the  last  century.  It 
was  an  excellent  type  of  the  gens  in  organization  and  in 
spirit,  and  an  extraordinary  illustration  of  the  power  of  the 
gentile  life  over  its  members.  The  illustrious  author  of 
Waverley  has  perpetuated  a  number  of  striking  characters 
developed  under  clan  life,  and  stamped  with  its  peculiari- 
ties. Evan  Dhu,  Torquil,  Rob  Roy  and  many  others  rise 
before  the  mind  as  illustrations  of  the  influence  of  the  gens 
in  molding  the  character  of  individuals.  If  Sir  Walter  ex- 
aggerated these  characters  in  some  respects  to  suit  the  emer- 


358 


GENTES  IN  OTHER   TRIBES  OF  HUMAN  FAMILY. 


gencies  of  a  tale,  they  had  a  real  foundation.  The  same 
clans,  a  few  centuries  earlier,  when  clan  life  was  stronger  and 
external  influences  were  weaker,  would  probably  have  veri- 
fied the  pictures.  We  find  in  their  feuds  and  blood  revenge, 
in  their  localization  by  gentes,  in  their  use  of  lands  in  com- 
mon, in  the  fidelity  of  the  clansman  to  his  chief  and  of  the 
members  of  the  clan  to  each  other,  the  usual  and  persistent 
features  of  gentile  society.  As  portrayed  by  Scott,  it  was  a 
more  intense  and  chivalrous  gentile  life  than  we  are  able  to 
find  in  the  gentes  of  the  Greeks  and  Romans,  or,  at  the  other 
extreme,  in  those  of  the  American  aborigines.  Whether 
the  phratric  organization  existed  among  them  does  not  ap- 
pear ;  but  at  some  anterior  period  both  the  phratry  and  the 
tribe  doubtless  did  exist.  It  is  well  known  that  the  British 
government  were  compelled  to  break  up  the  Highland  clans, 
as  organizations,  in  order  to  bring  the  people  under  the 
authority  of  law  and  the  usages  of  political  society.  Descent 
was  in  the  male  line,  the  children  of  the  males  remaining 
members  of  the  clan,  while  the  children  of  its  female  mem- 
bers belonged  to  the  clans  of  their  respective  fathers. 

We  shall  pass  over  the  Irish  sept,  the  pJiis  or  phrara  of 
the  Albanians,  which  embody  the  remains  of  a  prior  gentile 
organization,  and  the  traces  of  a  similar  organization  in 
Dalmatia  and  Croatia ;  and  also  the  Sanskrit  ganas,  the 
existence  of  which  term  in  the  language  implies  that  this 
branch  of  the  Aryan  family  formerly  possessed  the  same 
institution.  The  communities  of  Villeins  on  French  estates 
in  former  times,  noticed  by  Sir  Henry  Maine  in  his  recent 
work,  may  prove  to  be,  as  he  intimates,  remains  of  ancient 
Celtic  gentes.  "  Now  that  the  explanation  has  once  been 
given,"  he  remarks,  "  there  can  be  no  doubt  that  these 
associations  were  not  really  voluntary  partnerships,  but 
groups  of  kinsmen  ;  not,  however,  so  often  organized  on  the 
ordinary  type  of  the  Village-Community  as  on  that  of 
the  House-Community,  which  has  recently  been  exam- 
ined in  Dalmatia  and  Croatia.  Each  of  them  was  what 
the  Hindus  call  a  Joint-Undivided  family,  a  collection  of 
assumed  descendants    from    a   common  ancestor,  preserv- 


ANCIENT  SOCIETY.  359 

ing   a  common  hearth  and  common  meals  during  several 
generations."  ' 

A  brief  reference  should  be  made  to  the  question  whether 
any  traces  of  the  gentile  organization  remained  among  the 
Germ.an  tribes  when  they  first  came  under  historical  notice. 
That  they  inherited  this  institution,  with  other  Aryan  tribes, 
from  the  common  ancestors  of  the  Aryan  family,  is  probable. 
When  first  known  to  the  Romans,  they  were  in  the  Upper 
Status  of  barbarism.  They  could  scarcely  have  developed 
the  idea  of  government  further  than  the  Grecian  and  Latin 
tribes,  who  were  in  advance  of  them,  when  each  respectively 
became  known.  While  the  Germans  may  have  acquired  an 
imperfect  conception  of  a  state,  founded  upon  territory  and 
upon,  property,  it  is  not  probable  that  they  had  any  knowl- 
edge of  the  second  great  plan  of  government  which  the 
Athenians  were  first  among  Aryan  tribes  to  establish.  The 
condition  and  mode  of  life  of  the  German  tribes,  as  de- 
scribed by  Caesar  and  Tacitus,  tend  to  the  conclusion  that 
their  several  societies  were  held  together  through  personal 
relations,  and  with  but  slight  reference  to  territory ;  and 
that  their  government  was  through  these  relations.  Civil 
chiefs  and  military,  commanders  acquired  and  held  office 
through  the  elective  principle,  and  constituted  the  council 
which  was  the  chief  instrument  of  government.  On  lesser 
affairs,  Tacitus  remarks,  the  chiefs  consult, but  on  those  of 
greater  importance  the  whole  community.  While  the  final 
decision  of  all  important  questions  belonged  to  the  people, 
they  were  first  maturely  considered  by  the  chiefs.^  The 
close  resemblance  of  these  to  Grecian  and  Latin  usages  will 
be  perceived.  The  government  consisted  of  three  powers, 
the  council  of  chiefs,  the  assembly  of  the  people,  and  the 
military  commander. 

Caesar  remarks  that  the  Germans  were  not  studious  of 
agriculture,  the  greater  part  of  their  food  consisting  of  milk, 
cheese  and  meat ;  nor  had  any  one  a  fixed  quantity  of  land, 
or  his  own  individual  boundaries,  but  the  magistrates  and 
chiefs  each  year  assigned   to  the  gentes  and  kinsmen  who 

'  Early  History  of  Institutions,  Holt's  ed.,  p.  7.  '"'  Ccrniaiiia,  c.  ii. 


36o   gje:ntes  in  other  tribes  of  human  family. 

had  united  in  one  body  {gcntibiis  cognatioiiibusque  hoininum, 
qui  una  cocriiii)  as  much  land,  and  in  such  places  as  seemed 
best,  compelling  them  the  next  year  to  remove  to  another 
place.*  To  give  effect  to  the  expression  in  parenthesis,  it 
must  be  supposed  that  he  found  among  them  groups  of 
persons,  larger  than  a  family,  united  on  the  basis  of  kin,  to 
whom,  as  groups  of  persons,  lands  were  allotted.  It  ex- 
cludes individuals,  and  even  the  family,  both  of  whom  were 
merged  in  the  group  thus  united  for  cultivation  and  sub- 
sistence. It  seems  probable,  from  the  form  of  the  state- 
ment, that  the  German  family  at  this  time  was  syndyas- 
mian;  and  that  several  related  families  were  united  in  house- 
holds and  practiced  communism  in  living. 

Tacitus  refers  to  a  usage  of  the  German  tribes  in  the 
arrangement  of  their  forces  in  battle,  by  which  kinsmen 
were  placed  side  by  side.  It  would  have  no  significance,  if 
kinship  were  limited  to  near  consanguinei.  And  what  is  an 
especial  incitement  of  their  courage,  he  remarks,  neither 
chance  nor  a  fortuitous  gathering  of  the  forces  make  up  the 
squadron  of  horse,  or  the  infantry  wedge  ;  but  they  were 
formed  according  to  families  and  kinships  {fainilice  ct  propin- 
quitatcs)^'  This  expression,  and  that  previously  quoted  from 
Caesar,  seem  to  indicate  the  remains  at  least  of  a  prior  gen- 
tile organization,  which  at  this  time  was  giving  place  to  the 
mark  or  local  district  as  the  basis  of  a  still  imperfect  politi- 
cal system. 

The  German  tribes,  for  the  purpose  of  military  levies,  had 
the  mark  {jiiarkgcnosscnscJiaff),  which  also  existed  among 
the  English  Saxons,  and  a  larger  group,  the  gau,  to  which 
Cffisar  and  Tacitus  gave  the  name  oi pagus^  It  is  doubtful 
whether  the  mark  and  the  gaii  were  then  strictly  geographi- 
cal districts,  standing  to  each  other  in  the  relations  of  town- 

'  De  Bell.  Gall.,  vi,  22. 

"^  Germania,  cap.  7.  The  line  of  battle,  this  author  remarks,  is  formed  by 
wedges.  Acies  per  cuneos  componitur. — Ger.,  c.  6.  Kohlrausch  observes  that 
"the  confederates  of  one  mark  or  hundred,  and  of  one  race  or  sept,  fought 
united." — History  of  Germany,  Appletons'  ed.,  trans,  by  J.  D.  Haas,  p.  28. 

'  De  Bell.  Gall.,  iv,  i.     Gcrmania,  cap.  6. 


ANCIENT  SOCIETY.  361 

ship  and  county,  each  circumscribed  by  bounds,  with  the 
people  in  each  politically  organized.  It  seems  more  proba- 
ble that  WiQ  gau  was  a  group  of  settlements  associated  with 
reference  to  military  levies.  As  such,  the  mark  and  the  gau 
were  the  germs  of  the  future  township  and  county,  pre- 
cisely as  the  Athenian  naucrary  and  trittys  were  the  rudi- 
ments of  the  Cleisthenean  deme  and  local  tribe.  These 
organizations  seemed  transitional  stages  between  a  gentile 
and  a  political  system,  the  grouping  of  the  people  still  rest- 
ing on  consanguinity.' 

We  naturally  turn  to  the  Asiatic  continent,  where  the 
types  of  mankind  are  the  most  numerous,  and  where,  conse- 
quently, the  period  of  human  occupation  has  been  longest, 
to  find  the  earliest  traces  of  the  gentile  organization.  But 
here  the  transformations  of  society  have  been  the  most 
extended,  and  the  influence  of  tribes  and  nations  upon  each 
other  the  most  constant.  The  early  development  of  Chinese 
and  Indian  civilization  and  the  overmastering  influence  of 
modern  civilization  have  wrought  such  changes  in  the  con- 


*  Dr.  Freeman,  who  has  studied  this  subject  specially,  remarks  :  "  The  lowest 
unit  in  the  political  system  is  that  which  still  exists  under  various  names,  as  the 
mark,  i\\e  geminde,  the  commune,  or  ihe.  pa7'isk.  This,  as  we  have  seen,  is  one 
of  many  forms  of  the  gens  or  clan,  that  in  which  it  is  no  longer  a  wandering  or 
a  mere  predatory  body,  but  when,  on  the  other  hand,  it  has  not  joined  with 
others  to  form  one  component  element  of  a  city  commonwealth.  In  this  stage 
the  gens  takes  the  form  of  an  agricultural  body,  holding  its  common  lands — the 
germ  of  the  ager publicus  of  Rome,  and  of  the  folkland  of  England.  This  is 
the  T?iarkgenossenschaft,  the  village  community  of  the  West.  This  lowest  politi- 
cal unit,  this  gathering  of  real  or  artificial  kinsmen,  is  made  up  of  families,  each 
living  under  the  rule,  the  miird  of  its  own  father,  that  patria  potestas  which 
survived  at  Rome  to  form  so  marked  and  lasting  a  feature  of  Roman  law.  As 
the  union  of  families  forms  the  gens,  and  as  the  gens  in  its  territorial  aspect 
forms  the  markgenossenschaft,  so  the  union  of  several  such  village  communities 
and  their  marks  or  common  lands  forms  the  next  higher  political  union,  the 
hundred,  a  name  to  be  found  in  one  shape  or  another  in  most  lands  into  which 
the  Teutonic  race  has  spread  itself.  ....  Above  the  hundred  comes  the 
pagtis,  the  gau,  the  Danish  syssel,  the  English  shiir,  that  is,  the  tribe  looked  at 
as   occupying  a  certain   territory.     And  each  of    these  divisions,  greater  and 

smaller,  had  its  chiefs The  hundred  is  made  up  of  villages,  marks, 

geminden,  whatever  we  call  the  lowest  unit  ;  the  shire,  the  gau,  the pagus,  is 
made  up  of  hundreds." — Comp:irative  Politics,  McMillan  &  Co.'s  ed.,p.  116. 


362 


GENTES  IN  OTHER  TRIBES  OF  HUMAN  FAivJiLY. 


dition  of  Asiatic  stocks  that  their  ancient  institutions  are  not 
easily  ascertainable.  Nevertheless,  the  whole  experience  of 
mankind  from  savagery  to  civilization  was  worked  out  upon 
the  Asiatic  continent,  and  among  its  fragmentary  tribes  the 
remains  of  their  ancient  institutions  must  now  be  sought. 

Descent  in  the  female  line  is  still  very  common  in  the 
ruder  Asiatic  tribes  ;  but  there  are  numerous  tribes  among 
whom  it  is  traced  in  the  male  line.  It  is  the  limitation  of 
descent  to  one  line  or  the  other,  followed  by  the  organiza- 
tion of  the  body  of  consanguinei,  thus  separated  under  a 
common  name  which  indicates  a  gens. 

In  the  Magar  tribe  of  Nepaul,  Latham  remarks,  ''  there 
are  twelve  thums.  All  individuals  belonging  to  the  same 
thum  are  supposed  to  be  descended  from  the  same  male 
ancestor  ;  descent  from  the  same  mother  being  by  no  means 
necessary.  So  husband  and  wife  must  belong  to  different 
thums.  Within  one  and  the  same  there  is  no  marriage. 
Do  you  wish  for  a  wife  ?  If  so,  look  to  the  thum  of  your 
neighbor  ;  at  any  rate  look  beyond  your  own.  This  is  the 
first  time  I  have  found  occasion  to  mention  this  practice. 
It  will  not  be  the  last ;  on  the  contrary,  the  principle  it  sug- 
gests is  so  common  as  to  be  almost  universal.  We  shall 
find  it  in  Australia  ;  we  shall  find  it  in  North  and  South 
America;  we  shall  find  it  in  Africa;  we  shall  find  it  in  Eu- 
rope; we  shall  suspect  and  infer  it  in  many  places  where  the 
actual  evidence  of  its  existence  is  incomplete."  ^  In  this 
case  we  have  in  the  tJnnn  clear  evidence  of  the  existence  of 
a  gens,  with  descent  in  the  male  line. 

"  The  Munnieporees,  and  the  following  tribes  inhabiting 
the  hills  round  Munniepore — the  Koupooes,  the  Mows, 
the  Murams,  and  the  Murring — are  each  and  all  divided  into 
four  families — Koomul,  Looang,  Angom,  and  Ningthaja. 
A  member  of  any  of  these  families  may  marry  a  member 
of  any  other,  but  the  intermarriage  of  members  of  the  same 
family  is  strictly  prohibited."  ^  In  these  families  may  be 
recognized  four  gentes  in  each  of  these  tribes.  Bell,  speak- 
ing of  the  Tclihh  of  the  Circassians,  remarks  that  "  the  tra- 

*  Descriptive  Ethnology,  i,  So.         *  McLennan's  Primitive  Mania^e,  p.  109. 


ANCIENT  SOCIETY.  363 

dition  in  regard  to  them  is,  that  the  members  of  each  and 
all  sprang  from  the  same  stock  or  ancestry ;  and  thus  they 

may  be  considered  as  so  many  septs  or  clans These 

cousins  german,  or  members  of  the  same  fraternity,  are  not 
only  themselves  interdicted  from  intermarrying,  but  their 
serfs,  too,  must  wed  with  serfs  of  another  fraternity."  '  It 
is  probable  that  the  telAsh  is  a  gens. 

Among  the  Bengalese  "  the  four  castes  are  subdivided 
into  many  different  sects  or  classes,  and  each  of  these  is 
again  subdivided  ;  for  instance,  I  am  of  Nundy  tribe  [gens  ?], 
and  if  I  were  a  heathen  I  could  not  marry  a  woman  of  the 
same  tribe,  although  the  caste  must  be  the  same.  The 
children  are  of  the  tribe  of  their  father.  Property  descends 
to  the  sons.  In  case  the  person  has  no  sons,  to  his  daugh- 
ters ;  and  if  he  leaves  neither,  to  his  nearest  relatives.  Castes 
are  subdivided,  such  as  Slmro,  which  is  one  of  the  first 
divisions  ;  but  it  is  again  subdivided,  such  as  Khayrl,  Tilly, 
Tamally,  Tanty,  Chomor,  Kari,  etc.  A  man  belonging  to 
one  of  these  last-named  subdivisions  cannot  marry  a  woman 
of  the  same."  °  These  smallest  groups  number  usually 
about  a  hundred  persons,  and  still  retain  several  of  the  char- 
acteristics of  a  gens. 

Mr.  Tyler  remarks,  that  "  in  India  it  is  unlawful  for  a 
Brahman  to  marry  a  wife  whose  clan-name  or  gJiotra  (liter- 
ally '  cow-stall ')  is  the  same  as  his  own,  a  prohibition  which 
bars  marriage  among  relatives  in  the  male  line  indefinitely. 
This  law  appears  in  the  code  of  Manu  as  applying  to  the 
first  three  castes,  and  connexions  on  the  female  side  are 
also  forbidden  to  marry  within  certain  wide  limits."  '  And 
again  :  "  Among  the  Kols  of  Chota-Nagpur,  we  find  many 
of  the  Oraon  and  Munda  clans  named  after  animals,  as  eel, 
hawk,  crow,  heron,  and  they  must  not  kill  or  eat  what  they 
are  named  after."  ^ 

The  Mongolians  approach  the  American  aborigines  quite 

'  Quoted  in  Pii?nitive  Maniage,  p.  loi. 

*  Letter  to  the  Author,  by  Rev.  Gopenath  Nundy,  a  Native  Bengalese,  India. 
'  Early  History  of  Mankind,  p.  282. 

*  Primitive  Culture,  Holt  &  Co.'s  ed.,  ii,  235. 


3^4 


GENTES  IN  OTHER  TRIBES  OF  HUMAN  FAMILY. 


nearly  in  physical  characteristics.  They  are  divided  into 
numerous  tribes.  "  The  connection,"  says  Latham,  "  be- 
tween the  members  of  a  tribe  is  that  of  blood,  pedigree,  or 
descent  ;  the  tribe  being,  in  some  cases,  named  after  a  real 
or  supposed  patriarch.  The  tribe,  by  which  we  translate 
the  native  name  aimaiik,  or  ainidk,  is  a  large  division  falling 
into  so  many  kokhuvis,  or  banners."  *  The  statement  is 
not  full  enough  to  show  the  existence  of  gentes.  Their 
neighbors,  the  Tungusians  are  composed  of  subdivisions 
named  after  animals,  as  the  horse,  the  dog,  the  reindeer, 
which  imply  the  gentile  organizations,  but  it  cannot  be 
asserted  without  further  particulars. 

Sir  John  Lubbock  remarks  of  the  Kalmucks  that  accord- 
ing to  De  Hell,  they  "  are  divided  into  hordes,  and  no  man 
can  marry  a  woman  of  the  same  horde ;  "  and  of  the  Ostiaks, 
that  they  "  regard  it  as  a  crime  to  marry  a  woman  of  the 
same  family  or  even  of  the  same  name ;  "  and  that  "  when  a 
Jakut  (Siberia)  wishes  to  marry,  he  must  choose  a  girl  from 
another  clan.""  We  have  in  each  of  these  cases  evidence 
of  the  existence  of  a  gens,  one  of  the  rules  of  which,  as  has 
been  shown,  is  the  prohibition  of  intermarriage  among  its 
members.  The  Yurak  Samoyeds  are  organized  in  gentes. 
Klaproth,  quoted  by  Latham,  remarks  that  "  this  division 
of  the  kinsmanship  is  so  rigidly  observed  that  no  Samoyed 
takes  a  wife  from  the  kinsmanship  to  which  he  himself  be- 
longs. On  the  contrary,  he  seeks  her  in  one  of  the  other 
two."  ' 

A  peculiar  family  system  prevails  among  the  Chinese 
which  seems  to  embody  the  remains  of  an  ancient  gentile 
organization.  Mr.  Robert  Hart,  of  Canton,  in  a  letter  to 
the  author  remarks,  "  that  the  Chinese  expression  for  the 
people  is  Pih-sing,  which  means  the  Hundred  Family  Names ; 
but  whether  this  is  mere  word-painting,  or  had  its  origin  at 
a  time  when  the  Chinese  general  family  consisted  of  one 
hundred  subfamilies  or  tribes  [gentes?]  I  am  unable  to  de- 
termine.    At  the  present  day  there  are  about  four  hundred 

'  Descriptive  Ethnology,  i,  2go.  '  Origin  of  Civilization,  96, 

^  Desciiptive  Ethnology,  i.  475- 


ANCIENT  SOCIETY.  365 

family  names  in  this  country,  among  which  I  find  some  that 
have  reference  to  animals,  fruits,  metals,  natural  objects, 
etc.,  and  which  may  be  translated  as  Horse,  Sheep,  Ox, 
Fish,  Bird,  Phcenix,  Plum,  Flower,  Leaf,  Rice,  Forest, 
River,  Hill,  Water,  Cloud,  Gold,  Hide,  Bristles,  etc.,  etc. 
In  some  parts  of  the  country  large  villages  are  met  with,  in 
each  of  which  there  exists  but  one  family  name  ;  thus  in 
one  district  will  be  found,  say,  three  villages,  each  contain- 
ing two  or  three  thousand  people,  the  one  of  the  Horse, 
the  second  of  the  Sheep,  and  the  third  of  the  Ox  family 
name Just  as  among  the  North  American  In- 
dians husbands  and  wives  are  of  different  tribes  [gentes],  so 
in  China  husband  and  wife  are  always  of  different  families, 
i.e.y  of  different  surnames.  Custom  and  law  alike  prohibit 
intermarriage  on  the  part  of  people  having  the  same  family 
surname.     The  children  are  of  the  father's   family,  that  is, 

they  take  his  family  surname Where  the  father 

dies  intestate  the  property  generally  remains  undivided,  but 
under  the  control  of  the  oldest  son  during  the  life  of  the 
widow.  On  her  death  he  divides  the  property  between  him- 
self and  his  brothers,  the  shares  of  the  juniors  depending 
entirely  upon  the  will  of  the  elder  brother." 

The  family  here  described  appears  to  be  a  gens,  analogous 
to  the  Roman  in  the  time  of  Romulus ;  but  whether  it  was 
reintegrated,  with  other  gentes  of  common  descent,  in  a 
phratry  does  not  appear.  Moreover,  the  gentiles  are  still 
located  as  an  independent  consanguine  body  in  one  area,  as 
the  Roman  gentes  were  localized  in  the  early  period,  and 
the  names  of  the  gentes  are  still  of  the  archaic  type.  Their 
increase  to  four  hundred  by  segmentation  might  have  been 
expected ;  but  their  maintenance  to  the  present  time,  after 
the  period  of  barbarism  has  long  passed  away,  is  the  remark- 
able fact,  and  an  additional  proof  of  their  immobility  as  a 
people.  It  may  be  suspected  also  that  the  monogamian 
family  in  these  villages  has  not  attained  its  full  develop- 
ment, and  that  communism  in  living,  and  in  wives  as  well, 
may  not  be  unknown  among  them.  Among  the  wild  abo- 
riginal tribes,  who  still   inhabit   the  mountain   regions  of 


366     GENTES  IN  OTHER   TRIBES  OF  HUMAN  FAMILY. 

China  and  who  speak  dialects  different  from  the  Mandarin, 
the  gens  in  its  archaic  form  may  yet  be  discovered.  To 
these  isolated  tribes,  we  should  naturally  look  for  the  an- 
cient institutions  of  the  Chinese. 

In  like  manner  the  tribes  of  Afghanistan  are  said  to  be 
subdivided  into  clans ;  but  whether  these  clans  are  true 
gentes  has  not  been  ascertained. 

Not  to  weary  the  reader  with  further  details  of  a  similar 
character,  a  sufficient  number  of  cases  have  been  adduced 
to  create  a  presumption  that  the  gentile  organization  pre- 
vailed very  generally  and  widely  among  the  remote  ances- 
tors of  the  present  Asiatic  tribes  and  nations. 

The  twelve  tribes  of  the  Hebrews,  as  they  appear  in  the 
Book  of  Numbers,  represent  a  reconstruction  of  Hebrew 
society  by  legislative  procurement.  The  condition  of  bar- 
barism had  then  passed  away,  and  that  of  civilization  had 
commenced.  The  principle  on  which  the  tribes  were  organ- 
ized, as  bodies  of  consanguinei,  presuppose  an  anterior  gen- 
tile system,  which  had  remained  in  existence  and  was  now 
systematized.  At  this  time  they  had  no  knowledge  of  any 
other  plan  of  government  than  a  gentile  society  formed 
of  consanguine  groups  united  through  personal  relations. 
Their  subsequent  localization  in  Palestine  by  consanguine 
tribes,  each  district  named  after  one  of  the  twelve  sons  of 
Jacob,  with  the  exception  of  the  tribe  of  Levi,  is  a  practical 
recognition  of  the  fact  that  they  were  organized  by  lineages 
and  not  into  a  community  of  citizens.  The  history  of  the 
most  rem.arkable  nation  of  the  Semitic  family  has  been  con- 
centrated around  the  names  of  Abraham,  Isaac  and  Jacob, 
and  the  twelve  sons  of  the  latter. 

Hebrew  history  commences  essentially  with  Abraham, 
the  account  of  whose  forefathers  is  limited  to  a  pedigree 
barren  of  details.  A  few  passages  will  show  the  extent  of 
the  progress  then  made,  and  the  status  of  advancement  in 
which  Abraham  appeared.  He  is  described  as  "  very  rich 
in  cattle,  in  silver,  and  in  gold.'"  For  the  cave  of  Mach- 
pelah  "Abraham  weighed  to   Ephron  the  silver,  which  he 

*  Genesis,  xiii,  2 


ANCIENT  SOCIETY.  367 

had  named  in  the  audience  of  the  sons  of  Heth,  four  hun- 
dred shekels  of  silver,  current  money  with  the  merchant."  * 
With  respect  to  domestic  life  and  subsistence,  the  following 
passage  may  be  cited:  "And  Abraham  hastened  into  the 
tent  unto  Sarah,  and  said.  Make  ready  quickly  three  meas- 
ures of  fine  meal ;  knead  it,  and  make  cakes  upon  the 
hearth." '  "  And  he  took  butter  and  milk,  and  the  calf 
which  he  had  dressed,  and  set  it  before  them."'  With 
respect  to  implements,  raiment  and  ornaments:  "Abraham 
took  the  fire  in  his  hand  and  a  knife."  "  "  And  the  servant 
brought  forth  jewels  of  silver,  and  jewels  of  gold,  and  rai- 
ment, and  gave  them  to  Rebekah  :  he  gave  also  to  her 
brother  and  to  her  mother  precious  things."  ^  When  she 
met  Isaac,  Rebekah  "  took  a  veil  and  covered  herself"  '  In 
the  same  connection  are  mentioned  the  camel,  ass,  ox,  sheep 
and  goat,  together  with  flocks  and  herds  ;  the  grain  mill, 
the  water  pitcher,  earrings,  bracelets,  tents,  houses  and 
cities.  The  bow  and  arrow,  the  sword,  corn  and  wine,  and 
fields  sown  with  grain,  are  mentioned.  They  indicate  the 
Upper  Status  of  barbarism  for  Abraham,  Isaac  and  Jacob. 
Writing  in  this  branch  of  the  Semitic  family  was  probably 
then  unknown.  The  degree  of  development  shown  corre- 
sponds substantially  with  that  of  the  Homeric  Greeks. 

Early  Hebrew  marriage  customs  indicate  the  presence  of 
the  gens,  and  in  its  archaic  form.  Abraham,  by  his  servant, 
seemingly  purchased  Rebekah  as  a  wife  for  Isaac  ;  the  "pre- 
cious things"  being  given  to  the  brother,  and  to  the  mother 
of  the  bride,  but  not  to  the  father.  In  this  case  the  pre- 
sents went  to  the  gentile  kindred,  provided  a  gens  existed, 
with  descent  in  the  female  line.  Again,  Abraham  married 
his  half-sister  Sarah.  "  And  yet  indeed,"  he  says,  "  she  is 
my  sister  ;  she  is  the  daughter  of  my  father,  but  not  the 
daughter  of  my  mother:  and  she  became  my  wife."  ' 

With  an  existing  gens  and  descent  in  the  female  line 
Abraham  and  Sarah  would  have  belonged  to  different  gentes, 
and  although  of  blood  kin  they  were  not  of  gentile  kin,  and 

*  Genesis,  xxiii,  16.  *  lb.,  xviii,  6.  '  lb.,  xviii,  8.         *  lb.,  xxii,  6. 

'  lb.,  xxiv,  53.  ^ lb.,  xxiv,  65.  '  lb.,  xx,  12. 


368     GENTES  IN  OTHER  TRIBES  OF  HUMAN  FAMILY. 

could  have  married  by  gentile  usage.  The  case  would  have 
been  reversed  in  both  particulars  with  descent  in  the  male 
line.  Nahor  married  his  niece,  the  daughter  of  his  brother 
Haran; '  and  Amram,  the  father  of  Moses,  married  his  aunt, 
the  sister  of  his  father,  who  became  the  mother  of  the 
Hebrew  lawgiver.^  In  these  cases,  with  descent  in  the 
female  line,  the  persons  marrying  would  have  belonged  to 
different  gentes  ;  but  otherwise  with  descent  in  the  male 
line.  While  these  cases  do  not  prove  absolutely  the  exist- 
ence of  gentes,  the  latter  would  afford  such  an  explanation 
of  them  as  to  raise  a  presumption  of  the  existence  of  the 
gentile  organization  in  its  archaic  form. 

When  the  Mosaic  legislation  was  completed  the  Hebrews 
were  a  civilized  people,  but  not  far  enough  advanced  to 
institute  political  society.  The  scripture  account  shows 
that  they  were  organized  in  a  series  of  consanguine  groups 
in  an  ascending  scale,  analogous  to  the  gens,  phratry  and 
tribe  of  the  Greeks.  In  the  muster  and  organization  of  the 
Hebrews,  both  as  a  society  and  as  an  army,  while  in  the 
Sinaitic  peninsula,  repeated  references  are  made  to  these 
consanguine  groups  in  an  ascending  series,  the  seeming 
equivalents  of  a  gens,  phratry  and  tribe.  Thus,  the  tribe 
of  Levi  consisted  of  eight  gentes,  organized  in  three  phra- 
tries,  as  follows : 

Tribe  of  Levi. 
I.  Gershon.     7,500  Males. 
II.  Kohath.      8,600      " 
III.  Mcrari.      6,200      "■ 

I.  Gershonite  Phratry. 
Gentes. —  i.  Libni.  2.  SJiimei. 

II.  Kohatliite  Phratry. 

Gentes. — i.  Amram.        2.  Izhar.       3.  Hebron.       4.   Uzziel. 

III.  Merarite  PJiratry. 
Gentes.— I.  MaJili.  2.  Mushi. 

'  Genesis,  xi,  29.  *  Exodus,  vi,  20. 


ANCIENT  SOCIETY.  369 

"  Number  the  children   of  Levi  after  the  house  of  their 

fathers,  by  their  families And  these  were  the  sons 

of  Levi  by  their  names;  Gershon,  and  Kohath,  and  Merari, 
And  these  were  the  names  of  the  sons  of  Gershon  by  their 
families  ;  Libni,  and  Shimei.  And  the  sons  of  Kohath  by 
their  families  ;  Amram,  and  Izhar,  Hebron,  and  Uzzicl.  And 
the  sons  of  Merari  by  their  families  ;  Mahli,  and  Mushi. 
These  are  the  families  of  the  Levites  by  the  house  of  their 
fathers."  ' 

The  description  of  these  groups  sometimes  commences 
with  the  upper  member  of  the  series,  and  sometimes  with 
the  lower  or  the  unit.  Thus  :  "  Of  the  children  of  Simeon, 
by  their  generations,  after  their  families,  by  the  house  of 
their  fathers."  ^  Here  tJie  children  of  Simeon^  ivitJi  their  gen- 
erations, constitute  the  tribe;  ihQ  families  are  ihe  phratries; 
and  the  house  of  the  father  is  the  gens.  Again  :  "  And  the 
chief  of  the  house  of  the  father  of  the  families  of  the 
Kohathites  shall  be  Elizaphan  the  son  of  Uzziel."  '  Here 
we  find  the  gens  first,  and  then  the  phratry,  and  last  the 
tribe.  The  person  named  was  the  chief  of  the  phratry. 
Each  house  of  the  father  also  had  its  ensign  or  banner  to 
distinguish  it  from  others.  "  Every  man  of  the  children  of 
Israel  shall  pitch  by  his  own  standard,  with  the  ensign  of 
their  father's  house."  *  These  terms  describe  actual  organ- 
izations;  and  they  show  that  their  military  organization 
was  by  gentcs,  by  phratries  and  by  tribes. 

With  respect  to  the  first  and  smallest  of  these  groups, 
"the  house  of  the  father,"  it  must  have  numbered  several 
hundred  persons  from  the  figures  given  of  the  number  in 
each  phratry.  The  Hebrew  term  bcth'  ab,  s'lgm^es  pater- 
nal honse,  house  of  the  father,  and  family  house.  If  the 
Hebrews  possessed  the  gens,  it  was  this  group  of  persons. 
The  use  of  two  terms  to  describe  it  would  leave  a  doubt, 
unless  individual  families  under  monogany  had  then  be- 
come so  numerous  and  so  prominent  that  this  circumlocu- 
tion was  necessary  to  cover  the  kindred.  We  have  literally, 
the  house  of  Amram,  of  Izhar,  of  Hebron,  and  of  Uzziel ; 

'  Numbtj-s,  iii,  15-20.  ^  lb.,  i,  22.  '  lb.,  iii,  30.  ■•  lb,,  ii,  2. 

24 


370      GENTES  IN  OTHER  TRIBES  OF  HUMAN  FAMILY. 

but  as  the  Hebrews  at  that  time  could  have  had  no  con- 
ception of  a  house  as  now  applied  to  a  titled  family,  it 
probably  signified,  as  used,  kindred  or  lineage/  Since  each 
division  and  subdivision  is  headed  by  a  male,  and  since 
Hebrew  descents  are  traced  through  males  exclusively, 
descent  among  them,  at  this  time,  was  undoubtedly  in  the 
male  line.  Next  in  the  ascending  scale  is  \\\&  family,  which 
seems  to  be  a  phratry.  The  Hebrew  term  for  this  organiza- 
tion, mishpacah,  signifies  Jinion,  clanship.  It  was  composed 
of  two  or  more  houses  of  the  father,  derived  by  segmenta- 
tion from  an  original  group,  and  distinguished  by  a  phratric 
name.  It  answers  very  closely  to  the  phratry.  The  family 
or  phratry  had  an  annual  sacrificial  feast."  Lastly,  the  tribe, 
called  in  Hebrew  viatteh,  which  signifies  a  branch,  stem  or 
shoot,  is  the  analogue  of  the  Grecian  tribe. 

Very  few  particulars  are  given  respecting  the  rights, 
privileges  and  obligations  of  the  members  of  these  bodies 
of  consanguinei.  The  idea  of  kin  which  united  each  organi- 
zation from  the  house  of  the  father  to  the  tribe,  is  carried  out 
in  a  form  much  more  marked  and  precise  than  in  the  corre- 
sponding organizations  of  Grecian,  Latin  or  American  In- 
dian tribes.  While  the  Athenian  traditions  claimed  that 
the  four  tribes  were  derived  from  the  four  sons  of  Ion,  they 
did  not  pretend  to  explain  the  origin  of  the  gentes  and 
phratries.  On  the  contrary,  the  Hebrew  account  not  only 
derives  the  twelve  tribes  genealogically  from  the  twelve 
sons  bf  Jacob,  but  also  the  gentes  and  phratries  from  the 
children  and  descendants  of  each.  Human  experience  fur- 
nishes no  parallel  of  the  growth  of  gentes  and  phratries  pre- 
cisely in  this  way.  The  account  must  be  explained  as  a 
classification  of  existing  consanguine  groups,  according  to 
the  knowledge  preserved  by  tradition,  in  doing  which  minor 
obstacles  were  overcome  by  legislative  constraint. 

The  Hebrews  styled  themselves  the  "  People  of  Israel," 

'Kiel  and  Delitzschs,  in  their  commentaries  on  Exodus  vi,  14,  remark,  that 
"  '  father's  house '  was  a  technical  term  applied  to  a  collection  of  families  called  by 
the  name  of  a  common  ancestor."     This  is  a  fair  definition  of  a  gens. 

*  I  Samuel,  xx,  6,  29. 


ANCIENT  SOCIETY.  3/1 

and  also  a  "Congregation."  '     It  is  a  direct  recognition  of 
the  fact  that  their  organization  was  social,  and  not  political. 

In  Africa  we  encounter  a  chaos  of  savagery  and  bar- 
barism. Original  arts  and  inventions  have  largely  disap- 
peared, through  fabrics  and  utensils  introduced  from  exter- 
nal sources ;  but  savagery  in  its  lowest  forms,  cannibalism 
included,  and  barbarism  in  its  lowest  forms  prevail  over  the 
greater  part  of  the  continent.  Among  the  interior  tribes, 
there  is  a  nearer  approach  to  an  indigenous  culture  and  to  a 
normal  condition  ;  but  Africa,  in  the  main,  is  a  barren  eth- 
nological field. 

Although  the  home  of  the  Negro  race,  it  is  well  known  that 
their  numbers  are  limited  and  their  areas  small.  Latham 
significantly  remarks  that  "  the  negro  is  an  exceptional 
African." "  The  Ashiras,  Aponos,  Ishogos  and  Ashangos, 
between  the  Congo  and  the  Niger,  visited  by  Du  Chaillu, 
are  of  the  true  negro  type.  "  Each  village,"  he  remarks, 
"  had  its  chief,  and  further  in  the  interior  the  villages  seemed 
to  be  governed  by  elders,  each  elder  with  his  people  having 
a  separate  portion  of  the  village  to  themselves.  There  was 
in  each  clan  the  ifoumou,  fumou,  or  acknowledged  head  of 
the  clan  (ifoumou  meaning  the  source,  the  fatJicr').  I  have 
never  been  able  to  obtain  from  the  natives  a  knowledge 
concerning  the  splitting  of  their  tribes  into  clans;  they 
seemed  not  to  know  how  it  happened,  but  the  formation  of 
new  clans  does  not  take  place  now  among  them.  .  . 
The  house  of  a  chief  or  elder  is  not  better  than  those  of  his 
neighbors.  The  despotic  form  of  government  is  unknown. 
.     A  council  of  the  elders  is  necessary  before  one  is 

put  to  death Tribes  and  clans  intermarry  with 

each  other,  and  this  brings  about  a  friendly  feeling  among 
the  people.  People  of  the  same  clan  cannot  intermarry 
with  each  other.  The  least  consanguinity  is  considered  an 
abomination;  nevertheless  the  nephew  has  not  the  slightest 
objection  to  take  his  uncle's  wives,  and,  as  among  the  Balakai, 
the  son  takes  his  father's  wives,  except  his  own  mother. 
.     .     .     .     Polygamy  and  slavery  exist  everywhere  among 

'^Numbers,  i,  2.  ^  Descript.  Eth.,  ii,  1S4. 


372     GENTES  IN  OTHER  TRIBES  OF  HUMAN  FAMILY. 

the  tribes  I  have  visited The  law  of  inheritance 

among  the  Western  tribes  is,  that  the  next  brother  inherits 
the  wealth  of  the  eldest  (women,  slaves,  etc.),  but  that  if  the 
youngest  dies  the  eldest  inherits  his  property,  and  if  there 
are  no  brothers  that  the  nephew  inherits  it.  The  headship 
of  the  clan  or  family  is  hereditary,  following  the  same  law 
as  that  of  the  inheritance  of  property.  In  the  case  of  all  the 
brothers  having  died,  the  eldest  son  of  the  eldest  sister  inher- 
its, and  it  goes  on  thus  until  the  branch  is  extinguished,  for 
all  clans  are  considered  as  descended  from  the  female  side."* 

All  the  elements  of  a  true  gens  are  embodied  in  the  fore- 
going particulars,  namely,  descent  is  limited  to  one  line,  in 
this  case  the  female,  which  gives  the  gens  in  its  archaic 
form.  Moreover,  descent  is  in  the  female  line  with  respect 
to  office  and  to  property,  as  well  as  the  gentile  name.  The 
office  of  chief  passes  from  brother  to  brother,  or  from  uncle 
to  nephew,  that  nephew  being  the  son  of  a  sister,  as  among 
the  American  aborigines ;  whilst  the  sons  are  excluded 
because  not  members  of  the  gens  of  the  deceased  chief. 
Marriage  in  the  gens  is  also  forbidden.  The  only  material 
omission  in  these  precise  statements  is  the  names  of  some 
of  the  gentes.  The  hereditary  feature  requires  further 
explanation. 

Among  the  Banyai  of  the  Zambezi  river,  who  are  a  people 
of  higher  grade  than  the  negroes.  Dr.  Livingstone  observed 
the  following  usages :  "  The  government  of  the  Banyai  is 
rather  peculiar,  being  a  sort  of  feudal  republicanism.  The 
chief  is  elected,  and  they  choose  the  son  of  a  deceased  chief's 
sister  in  preference  to  his  own  offspring.  When  dissatisfied 
with  one  candidate,  they  even  go  to  a  distant  tribe  for  a 
successor,  who  is  usually  of  the  family  of  the  late  chief,  a 
brother,  or  a  sister's  son,  but  never  his  own  son  or  daugh- 
ter  All   the  wives,  goods,  and   children  of  his 

predecessor  belong  to  him."  "^     Dr.   Livingstone   does  not 

*  Ashango  Land,  Appletons'  ed.,  p.  425,  et  seq. 

"  Travels  in  South  Africa,  Appletons'  ed.,  ch.  30,  p.  660. — "When  a  young 
man  takes  a  liking  for  a  girl  of  another  village,  and  the  parents  have  no  objec- 
tion to  the  match,  he  is  obliged  to  come  and  live  at  their  village.     He  has  to 


ANCIENT  SOCIETY.  373 

give  the  particulars  of  their  social  organization  ;  but  the  de- 
scent of  the  office  of  chief  from  brother  to  brother,  or  from 
uncle  to  nephew,  implies  the  existence  of  the  gens  with 
descent  in  the  female  line. 

The  numerous  tribes  occupying  the  country  watered  by 
the  Zambezi,  and  from  thence  southward  to  Cape  Colony, 
are  regarded  by  the  natives  themselves,  according  to  Dr. 
Livingstone,  as  one  stock  in  three  great  divisions,  the  Bech- 
uanas,  the  Basutos,  and  the  Kafirs.^  With  respect  to  the  for- 
mer, he  remarks  that  "  the  Bechuana  tribes  are  named  after 
certain  animals,  showing  probably  that  in  ancient  times 
they  were  addicted  to  animal  worship  like  the  ancient 
Egyptians.  The  term  Bakatla  means  'they  of  the  Mon- 
key' ;  Bakuona,  'they  of  the  Alligator' ;  Batlapi,  '  they  of 
the  Fish  ' ;  each  tribe  having  a  superstitious   dread   of  the 

animal  after  which  it  is  called A  tribe  never  eats 

the  animal  which  is  its  namesake We  find  traces 

of  many  ancient  tribes  in  individual  members  of  those  now 
extinct ;  as  Batau,  '  they  of  the  Lion  ' ;  Banoga, '  they  of  the 
Serpent,'  though  no  such  tribes  now  exist."  *  These  ani- 
mal names  are  suggestive  of  the  gens  rather  than  the  tribe. 
Moreover,  the  fact  that  single  individuals  are  found,  each 
of  whom  was  the  last  survivor  of  his  tribe,  would  be  more 
likely  to  have  occurred  if  gens  were  understood  in  the 
place  of  tribe.  Among  the  Bangalas  of  the  Cassange  Val- 
ley, in  Argola,  Livingstone  remarks  that  "  a  chief's  brother 
inherits  in  preference  to  his  sons.  The  sons  of  a  sister  be- 
long to  her  brother  ;  and  he  often  sells  his  nephews  to  pay 
his  debts."  ^  Here  again  we  have  evidence  of  descent  in  the 
female  line;  but  his  statements  are  too  brief  and  general  in 
these  and  other  cases  to  show  definitely  whether  or  not 
they  possessed  the  gens. 

Among  the  Australians  the  gentes  of  the  Kamilaroi  have 
already  been  noticed.     In  ethnical  position  the  aborigines 

perform  certain  services  for  the  mother-in-law If  he  becomes  tired 

of  living  in  this  slate  of  vassalage,  and  wishes  to  return  to  his  own  family,  he  is 

obliged  to  leave  all  his  children  behind — they  belong  to  his  wife." — lb.,  p.  667. 

'    Travels  in  South  Africa,  p.  219.  *  lb.,  p.  471.  '  lb.,  p.  471. 


374     GENTES  IN  OTHER  TRIBES  OF  HUMAN  FAMILY. 

of  this  great  island  are  near  the  bottom  of  the  scale. 
When  discovered  they  were  not  only  savages,  but  in  a  low 
condition  of  savagery.  Some  of  the  tribes  were  cannibals. 
Upon  this  last  question  Mr.  Fison,  before  mentioned,  writes 
as  follows  to  the  author:  "  Some,  at  least,  of  the  tribes  are 
cannibals.  The  evidence  of  this  is  conclusive.  The  Wide 
Bay  tribes  eat  not  only  their  enemies  slain  in  battle,  but 
their  friends  also  who  have  been  killed,  and  even  those  who 
have  died  a  natural  death,  provided  they  are  in  good  con- 
dition. Before  eating  they  skin  them,  and  preserve  the 
skins  by  rubbing  them  with  mingled  fat  and  charcoal. 
These  skins  they  prize  very  highly,  believing  them  to  have 
great  medicinal  value." 

Such  pictures  of  human  life  enable  us  to  understand  the 
condition  of  savagery,  the  grade  of  its  usages,  the  degree 
of  material  development,  and  the  low  level  of  the  mental 
and  moral  life  of  the  people.  Australian  humanity,  as  seen 
in  their  cannibal  customs,  stands  on  as  low  a  plane  as  it  has 
been  known  to  touch  on  the  earth.  And  yet  the  Austra- 
lians possessed  an  area  of  continental  dimensions,  rich  in 
minerals,  not  uncongenial  in  climate,  and  fairly  supplied 
with  the  means  of  subsistence.  But  after  an  occupation 
which  must  be  measured  by  thousands  of  years,  they  are 
still  savages  of  the  grade  above  indicated.  Left  to  them- 
selves they  would  probably  have  remained  for  thousands  of 
years  to  come,  not  without  any,  but  with  such  slight  im- 
provement as  scarcely  to  lighten  the  dark  shade  of  their 
savage  state. 

Among  the  Australians,  whose  institutions  are  normal 
and  homogeneous,  the  organization  into  gentes  is  not  con- 
fined to  the  Kamilaroi,  but  seems  to  be  universal.  The 
Narrinyeri  of  South  Australia,  near  Lacepede  Bay  are  or- 
ganized in  gentes  named  after  animals  and  insects.  Rev. 
George  Taplin,  writing  to  my  friend  Mr.  Fison,  after  stating 
that  the  Narrinyeri  do  not  marry  into  their  own  gens,  and 
that  the  children  were  of  the  gens  of  their  father,  continues 
as  follows  :  "  There  are  no  castes,  nor  are  there  any  classes, 
similar  to  those  of  the  Kamilaroi-speaking  tribes  of  New 


ANCIENT  SOCIETY.  375 

South  Wales.  But  each  tribe  or  family  (and  a  tribe  is  a 
family)  has  its  totem,  or  ngaitye;  and  indeed  some  individ- 
uals have  this  ngaitye.     It  is  regarded  as  the  man's  tutelary 

genius.     It  is  some  animal,  bird,  or  insect The 

natives  are  very  strict  in  their  marriage  arrangements.  A 
tribe  [gens]  is  considered  a  family,  and  a  man  never  marries 
into  his  own  tribe." 

Mr.  Fison  also  writes,  "  that  among  the  tribes  of  the  Ma- 
ranoa  district,  Queensland,  whose  dialect  is  called  Urghi, 
according  to  information  communicated  to  me  by  Mr.  A.  S. 
P.  Cameron,  the  same  classification  exists  as  among  the  Ka- 
milaroi-speaking  tribes,  both  as  to  the  class  names  and  the 
totems."  With  respect  to  the  Australians  of  the  Darling 
River,  upon  information  communicated  by  Mr.  Charles  G. 
N.  Lockwood,  he  further  remarks,  that  "  they  are  subdi- 
vided into  tribes  [gentes],  mentioning  the  Emu,  Wild  Duck, 
and  Kangaroo,  but  without  saying  whether  there  are  others, 
and  that  the  children  take  both  the  class  name  and  totem 
of  the  mother."  ' 

From  the  existence  of  the  gentile  organization  among 
the  tribes  named  its  general  prevalence  among  the  Austra- 
lian aborigines  is  rendered  probable  ;  although  the  institu- 
tion, as  has  elsewhere  been  pointed  out,  is  in  the  incipient 
stages  of  its  dev^elopment. 

Our  information  with  respect  to  the  domestic  institutions 
of  the  inhabitants  of  Polynesia,  Micronesia  and  the  Papuan 
Islands  is  still  limited  and  imperfect.  No  traces  of  the 
gentile  organization  have  been  discovered  among  the  Ha- 
waiians,  Samoans,  Marquesas  Islanders  or  New  Zealanders. 
Their  system  of  consanguinity  is  still  primitive,  shoAving 
that  their  institutions  have  not  advanced  as  far  as  this 
organization  presupposes."  In  some  of  the  Micronesian 
Islands  the  office  of  chief  is  transmitted  through  females  ;' 
but  this  usage  might  exist  independently  of  the  gens.  The 
Fijians  are   subdivided  into  several  tribes  speaking  dialects 

'  See  also  Taylor's  Early  History  of  Mankind,  p.  284. 
^  Systems  of  Consangicitiity,  etc.,  loc.  cit.,  pp.  451,  482. 
'  Missionary  Herald,  1 853,  p.  90. 


n^     GENTES  IN  OTHER   TRIBES  OF  HUMAN  FAMILY. 

of  the  same  stock  language.  One  of  these,  the  Rewas,  con- 
sists of  four  subdivisions  under  distinctive  names,  and  each 
of  these  is  again  subdivided.  It  does  not  seem  probable 
that  the  last  subdivisions  are  gentes,  for  the  reason,  among 
others,  that  its  members  are  allowed  to  intermarry.  De- 
scent is  in  the  male  line.  In  like  manner  the  Tongans  are 
composed  of  divisions,  which  are  again  subdivided  the  same 
as  the  Rewas. 

Around  the  simple  ideas  relating  to  marriage  and  the 
family,  to  subsistence  and  to  government,  the  earliest  social 
organizations  were  formed  ;  and  with  them  an  exposition  of 
the  structure  and  principle  of  ancient  society  must  com- 
mence. Adopting  the  theory  of  a  progressive  development 
of  mankind  through  the  experience  of  the  ages,  the  insula- 
tion of  the  inhabitants  of  Oceanica,  their  limited  local  areas, 
and  their  restricted  means  of  subsistence  predetermined  a 
slow  rate  of  progress.  They  still  represent  a  condition  of 
mankind  on  the  continent  of  Asia  in  times  immensely  remote 
from  the  present  ;  and  while  peculiarities,  incident  to  their 
insulation,  undoubtedly  exist,  these  island  societies  repre- 
sent one  of  the  early  phases  of  the  great  stream  of  human 
progress.  An  exposition  of  their  institutions,  inventions 
and  discoveries,  and  mental  and  moral  traits,  would  supply 
one  of  the  great  needs  of  anthropological  science. 

This  concludes  the  discussion  of  the  organization  into 
gentes,  and  the  range  of  its  distribution.  The  organization 
has  been  found  among  the  Australians  and  African  Negroes, 
with  traces  of  the  system  in  other  African  tribes.  It  has 
been  found  generally  prevalent  among  that  portion  of  the 
American  aborigines  who  when  discovered  were  in  the 
Lower  Status  of  barbarism  ;  and  also  among  a  portion  of 
the  Village  Indians  who  were  in  the  Middle  Status  of  bar- 
barism. In  like  manner  it  existed  in  full  vitality  among 
the  Grecian  and  Latin  tribes  in  the  Upper  Status  of  bar- 
barism ;  with  traces  of  it  in  several  of  the  remaining  branches 
of  the  Aryan  family.  The  organization  has  been  found,  or 
traces  of  its  existence,  in  the  Turanian,  Uralian  and  Mon- 
golian families;  in  the  Tungusian   and   Chinese  stocks,  and 


ANCIENT  SOCIETY.  ^t?? 

in  the  Semitic  family  among  the  Hebrews.  Facts  sufficient- 
ly numerous  and  commanding  have  been  adduced  to  claim 
for  it  an  ancient  universality  in  the  human  family,  as  well 
as  a  general  prevalence  through  the  latter  part  of  the  period 
of  savagery,  and  throughout  the  period  of  barbarism. 

The  investigation  has  also  arrayed  a  sufficient  body  of 
facts  to  demonstrate  that  this  remarkable  institution  was 
the  origin  and  the  basis  of  Ancient  Society.  It  was  the 
first  organic  principle,  developed  through  experience,  which 
was  able  to  organize  society  upon  a  definite  plan,  and  hold 
it  in  organic  unity  until  it  was  sufficiently  advanced  for  the 
transition  into  political  society.  Its  antiquity,  its  substan- 
tial universality  and  its  enduring  vitality  are  sufficiently 
shown  by  its  perpetuation  upon  all  the  continents  to  the 
present  time.  The  wonderful  adaptability  of  the  gentile 
organization  to  the  wants  of  mankind  in  these  several 
periods  and  conditions  is  sufficiently  attested  by  its  prev- 
alence and  by  its  preservation.  It  has  been  identified 
with  the  most  eventful  portion  of  the  experience  of  man- 
kind. 

Whether  the  gens  originates  spontaneously  in  a  given 
condition  of  society,  and  would  thus  repeat  itself  in  discon- 
nected areas  ;  or  whether  it  had  a  single  origin,  and  was 
propagated  from  an  original  center,  through  successive  mi- 
grations, over  the  earth's  surface,  are  fair  questions  for  specu- 
lative consideration.  The  latter  hypothesis,  with  a  simple 
modification,  seems  to  be  the  better  one,  for  the  following 
reasons  :  We  find  that  two  forms  of  marriage,  and  two  forms 
of  the  family  preceded  the  institution  of  the  gens.  It  required 
a  peculiar  experience  to  attain  to  the  second  form  of  mar- 
riage and  of  the  family,  and  to  supplement  this  experience 
by  the  invention  of  the  gens.  This  second  form  of  the  family 
was  the  final  result,  through  natural  selection,  of  the  reduc- 
tion within  narrower  limits  of  a  stupendous  conjugal  system 
w^hich  enfolded  savage  man  and  held  him  with  a  powerful 
grasp.  His  final  deliverance  was  too  remarkable  and  too 
improbable,  as  it  would  seem,  to  be  repeated  many  different 
times,  and  in   widely  separated  areas.     Groups   of  consan- 


378     GENTES  IN  OTHER  TRIBES  OF  HUMAN  FAMIIY. 

guinei,  united  for  protection  and  subsistence,  doubtless,  ex- 
isted from  the  infancy  of  the  human  family;  but  the  gens 
is  a  very  different  body  of  kindred.  It  takes  a  part  and 
excludes  the  remainder  ;  it  organized  this  part  on  the  bond 
of- kin,  under  a  common  name,  and  with  common  rights 
and  privileges.  Intermarriage  in  the  gens  was  prohibited 
to  secure  the  benefits  of  marrying  out  with  unrelated  per- 
sons. This  was  a  vital  principle  of  the  organism  as  well  as 
one  most  difficult  of  establishment.  Instead  of  a  natural 
and  obvious  conception,  the  gens  was  essentially  abstruse; 
and,  as  such,  a  product  of  high  intelligence  for  the  times  in 
which  it  originated.  It  required  long  periods  of  time,  after 
the  idea  was  developed  into  life,  to  bring  it  to  maturity 
with  its  uses  evolved.  The  Polynesians  had  this  punaluan 
family,  but  failed  of  inventing  the  gens  ;  the  Australians 
had  the  same  form  of  the  family  and  possessed  the  gens. 
It  originates  in  the  punaluan  family,  and  whatever  tribes 
had  attained  to  it  possessed  the  elements  out  of  which  the 
gens  was  formed.  This  is  the  modification  of  the  hypothe- 
sis suggested.  In  the  prior  organization,  on  the  basis  of 
sex,  the  germ  of  the  gens  existed.  When  the  gens  had 
become  fully  developed  in  its  archaic  form  it  would  propa- 
gate itself  over  immense  areas  through  the  superior  powers 
of  an  improved  stock  thus  created.  Its  propagation  is  more 
easily  explained  than  its  institution.  These  considerations 
tend  to  show  the  improbability  of  its  repeated  reproduction 
in  disconnected  areas.  On  the  other  hand,  its  beneficial 
effects  in  producing  a  stock  of  savages  superior  to  any  then 
existing  upon  the  earth  must  be  admitted.  When  migra- 
tions were  flights  under  the  law  of  savage  life,  or  move- 
ments in  quest  of  better  areas,  such  a  stock  would  spread 
in  wave  after  wave  until  it  covered  the  larger  part  of  the 
earth's  surface.  A  consideration  of  the  principal  facts  now 
ascertained  bearing  upon  this  question  seems  to  favor  the 
hypothesis  of  a  single  origin  of  the  organization  into  gen- 
tes,  unless  we  go  back  of  this  to  the  Australian  classes, 
which  gave  the  punaluan  family  out  of  which  the  gens  orig- 
inated,  and  regard   these  classes    as  the  original  basis  of 


ANCIENT  SOCIETY. 


379 


ancient  society.  In  this  event  wherever  the  classes  were 
estabhshed,  the  gens  existed  potentially. 

Assuming  the  unity  of  origin  of  mankind,  the  occupation 
of  the  earth  occurred  through  migrations  from  an  original 
center.  The  Asiatic  continent  must  then  be  regarded  as 
the  cradle-land  of  the  species,  from  the  greater  number  of 
original  types  of  man  it  contains  in  comparison  with  Europe, 
Africa  and  America.  It  would  also  follow  that  the  separa- 
tion of  the  Negroes  and  Australians  from  the  common  stem 
occurred  when  society  was  organized  on  the  basis  of  sex, 
and  when  the  family  was  punuluan  ;  that  the  Polynesian 
migration  occurred  later,  but  with  society  similarly  con- 
stituted ;  and  finally,  that  the  Ganowanian  migration  to 
America  occurred  later  still,  and  after  the  institution  of  the 
gentes.  These  inferences  are  put  forward  simply  as  sugges- 
tions. 

A  knowledge  of  the  gens  and  its  attributes,  and  of  the 
range  of  its  distribution,  is  absolutely  necessary  to  a  proper 
comprehension  of  Ancient  Society.  This  is  the  great  sub- 
ject now  requiring  special  and  extended  investigation. 
This  society  among  the  ancestors  of  civilized  nations  at- 
tained its  highest  development  in  the  last  days  of  barbarism. 
But  there  were  phases  of  that  same  society  far  back  in  the 
anterior  ages,  which  must  now  be  sought  among  barbarians 
and  savages  in  corresponding  conditions.  The  idea  of 
organized  society  has  been  a  growth  through  the  entire 
existence  of  the  human  race  ;  its  several  phases  are  logically 
connected,  the  one  giving  birth  to  the  other  in  succession  ; 
and  that  form  of  it  we  have  been  contemplating  originated 
in  the  gens.  No  other  institution  of  mankind  has  held 
such  an  ancient  and  remarkable  relation  to  the  course  of 
human  progress.  The  real  history  of  mankind  is  contained 
in  the  history  of  the  growth  and  development  of  institu- 
tions, of  which  the  gens  is  but  one.  It  is,  however,  the 
basis  of  those  which  have  exercised  the  most  material 
influence  upon  human  affairs. 


PART     III. 
GROWTH    OF  THE   IDEA   OF   THE   FAMILY. 


CHAPTER  I. 

THE    ANCIENT   FAMILY. 

Five  SUCCESSIVE  Forms  OF  THE  Family. — First,  the  Consanguine  Fam- 
ily.— It  created  the  Malayan  System  of  Consanguinity  and  Affinity. 
— Second,  the  Punaluan. — It  created  the  Turanian  and  Ganowa- 
kian  System.  —  Third,  the  Monogamian. — It  created  the  Aryan, 
Semitic,  and  Uralian  System.  —  The  Syndyasmian  and  Patriarchal 
Families  Intermediate. — Both  failed  to  create  a  System  of  Consan- 
guinity.— These  Systems  Natural  Grow^ths. — Tvi^o  Ultimate  Forms. 
— One  Classificatory,  the  other  Descriptive. — General  Principles 
OF  these  Systems. — Their  persistent  Maintenance. 

We  have  been  accustomed  to  regard  the  monogamian 
family  as  the  form  which  has  always  existed;  but  inter- 
rupted in  exceptional  areas  by  the  patriarchal.  Instead  of 
this,  the  idea  of  the  family  has  been  a  growth  through  suc- 
cessive stages  of  development,  the  monogamian  being  the 
last  in  its  series  of  forms.  It  will  be  my  object  to  show 
that  it  was  preceded  by  more  ancient  forms  which  prevailed 
universally  throughout  the  period  of  savagery,  through  the 
Older  and  into  the  Middle  Period  of  barbarism  ;  and  that 
neither  the  monogamian  nor  the  patriarchal  can  be  traced 
back  of  the  Later  Period  of  barbarism.  They  were  essen- 
tially modern.  Moreover,  they  were  impossible  in  ancient 
society,  until  an  anterior  experience  under  earlier  forms  in 
every  race  of  mankind  had  prepared  the  way  for  their  intro- 
duction. 

Five  different  and  successive  forms  may  now  be  distin- 
guished, each  having  an  institution  of  marriage  peculiar  to 
itself.     They  are  the  following  : 


384  ANCIENT  SOCIETY. 

I.  The  Consanguine  Family. 

It  was  founded  upon  the  intermarriage  of  brothers  and 
sisters,  own  and  collateral,  in  a  group. 

II.  TJic  Piinaluan  Family. 

It  was  founded  upon  the  intermarriage  of  several  sisters, 
own  and  collateral,  with  each  others'  husbands,  in  a  group  ; 
the  joint  husbands  not  being  necessarily  kinsmen  of  each 
other.  Also,  on  the  intermarriage  of  several  brothers,  own 
and  collateral,  with  each  others'  wives,  in  a  group  ;  these 
wives  not  being  necessarily  of  kin  to  each  other,  although 
often  the  case  in  both  instances.  In  each  case  the  group 
of  men  were  conjointly  married  to  the  group  of  women. 

III.  TJie  Syndyasmian  or  Pairing-  Family. 

It  was  founded  upon  marriage  between  single  pairs,  but 
without  an  exclusive  cohabitation.  The  marriage  contin- 
ued during  the  pleasure  of  the  parties. 

IV.  The  Patriarchal  Family. 

It  was  founded  upon  the  marriage  of  one  man  with  sev- 
eral wives  ;  followed,  in  general,  by  the  seclusion  of  the 
wives. 

V.  The  Monogamian  Family. 

It  was  founded  upon  marriage  between  single  pairs,  with 
an  exclusive  cohabitation. 

Three  of  these  forms,  namely,  the  first,  second,  and  fifth, 
were  radical ;  because  they  were  sufficiently  general  and 
influential  to  create  three  distinct  systems  of  consanguinity, 
all  of  which  still  exist  in  living  forms.  Conversely,  these 
systems  are  sufficient  of  themselves  to  prove  the  antece- 
dent existence  of  the  forms  of  the  family  and  of  marriage, 
with  which  they  severally  stand  connected.  The  remain- 
ing two,  the  syndyasmian  and  the  patriarchal,  were  inter- 
mediate, and  not  sufficiently  influential  upon  human  affairs 
to  create  a  new,  or  modify  essentially  the  then  existing 
system  of  consanguinity.  It  will  not  be  supposed  that 
these  types  of  the  family  are  separated  from  each  other 
by  sharply  defined  lines  ;  on  the  contrary,  the  first  passes 
into  the  second,  the  second  into  the  third,  and  the  third 
into  the   fifth  by  insensible   gradations.      The  propositions 


THE  ANCIENT  FAMIL  Y.  385 

to  be  elucidated  and  established  are,  that  they  have  sprung 
successively  one  from  the  other,  and  that  they  represent 
collectively  the  growth  of  the  idea  of  the  family. 

Iji  order  to  explain  the  rise  of  these  several  forms  of  the 
family  and  o^f  marriage,  it  will  be  necessary  to  present  the 
substance  of  the  system  of  consanguinity  and  affinity  which 
pertains  to  each.  These  systems  embody  compendious  and 
decisive  evidence,  free  from  all  suspicion  of  design,  bearing 
directly  upon  the  question.  Moreover,  they  speak  with  an 
authority  and  certainty  which  leave  no  room  to  doubt  the 
inferences  therefrom.  But  a  system  of  consanguinity  is 
intricate  and  perplexing  until  it  is  brought  into  familiarity. 
It  will  tax  the  reader's  patience  to  look  into  the  subject  far 
enough  to  be  able  to  test  the  value  and  weight  of  the  evi- 
dence it  contains.  Having  treated  at  length,  in  a  previous 
work,  the  "  Systems  of  Consanguinity  and  Affinity  of  the 
Human  Family,"  '  I  shall  confine  the  statements  herein  to 
the  material  facts,  reduced  to  the  lowest  number  consistent 
with  intelligibility,  making  reference  to  the  other  work  for 
fuller  details,  and  for  the  general  Tables.  The  importance 
of  the  main  proposition  as  a  part  of  the  history  of  man,  name- 
ly, that  the  family  has  been  a  growth  through  several  suc- 
cessive forms,  is  a  commanding  reason  for  the  presentation 
and  study  of  these  systems,  if  they  can  in  truth  establish 
the  fact.  It  will  require  this  and  the  four  succeeding  chap- 
ters to  make  a  brief  general  exhibition  of  the  proof. 

The  most  primitive  system  of  consanguinity  yet  discov- 
ered is  found  among  the  Polynesians,  of  which  the  Hawaiian 
will  be  used  as  typical.  I  have  called  it  the  Malayan  system. 
Under  it  all  consanguinei,  near  and  remote,  fall  within  some 
one  of  the  following  relationships  ;  namely^  parent,  child, 
grandparent,  grandchild,  brother^  and  sister^  No  other 
blood  relationships  are  recognized.  Beside  these  are  the 
marriage  relationships.  This  system  of  consanguinity  came 
in  with  the  first  form  of  the  family,  the  consanguine,  and 
contains  the  principal  evidence  of  its  ancient  existence.  It 
may  seem  a  narrow  basis   for  so  important  an  inference: 

'  Smithsonian  Contributions  to  Knowledge,  vol.  xvii. 


386 


ANCIENT  SOCIETY. 


but  if  we  are  justified  in  assuming  that  each  relationship 
as  recognized  was  the  one  which  actually  existed,  the  infer- 
ence is  fully  sustained.  This  system  prevailed  very  gener- 
ally in  Polynesia,  although  the  family  among  them  had 
passed  out  of  the  consanguine  into  the  punaluan.  It  re- 
mained unchanged  because  no  motive  sufficiently  strong, 
and  no  alteration  of  institutions  sufficiently  radical  had  oc- 
curred to  produce  its  modification.  Intermarriage  between 
brothers  and  sisters  had  not  entirely  disappeared  from  the 
Sandwich  Islands  when  the  American  missions,  about  fifty 
years  ago,  were  established  among  them.  Of  the  ancient 
general  prevalence  of  this  system  of  consanguinity  over 
Asia  there  can  be  no  doubt,  because  it  is  the  basis  of  the 
Turanian  system  still  prevalent  in  Asia.  It  also  underlies 
the  Chinese. 

In  course  of  time,  a  second  great  system  of  consanguin- 
ity, the  Turanian,  supervened  upon  the  first,  and  spread  over 
a  large  part  of  the  earth's  surface.  It  was  universal  among 
the  North  American  aborigines,  and  has  been  traced  suffi- 
ciently among  those  of  South  America  to  render  probable 
its  equally  universal  prevalence  among  them.  Traces  of  it 
have  been  found  in  parts  of  Africa;  but  the  system  of  the 
African  tribes  in  general  approaches  nearer  the  Malayan. 
It  still  prevails  in  South  India  among  the  Hindus  who 
speak  dialects  of  the  Dravidian  language,  and  also,  in  a 
modified  form,  in  North  India,  among  the  Hindus  who 
speak  dialects  of  the  Gaura  language.  It  also  prevails  in 
Australia  in  a  partially  developed  state,  where  it  seems  to 
have  originated  either  in  the  organization  into  classes, 
or  in  the  incipient  organization  into  gentes,  which  led  to 
the  same  result.  In  the  principal  tribes  of  the  Turanian  and 
Ganowanian  families,  it  owes  its  origin  to  punaluan  mar- 
riage in  the  group  and  to  the  gentile  organization,  the 
latter  of  which  tended  to  repress  consanguine  marriages. 
It  has  been  shown  how  this  was  accomplished  by  the  pro- 
hibition of  intermarriage  in  the  gens,  which  permanently 
excluded  own  brothers  and  sisters  from  the  marriage  rela- 
tion.    AVhen   the  Turanian  system  of  consanguinity  came 


THE  ANCIENT  FAMIL  V.  387 

in,  the  form  of  the  family  was  punaluan.  This  is  proven 
by  the  fact  that  punaluan  marriage  in  the  group  explains 
-the  principal  relationships  under  the  system  ;  showing 
them  to  be  those  which  would  actually  exist  in  virtue  of 
this  form  of  marriage.  Through  the  logic  of  the  facts  we 
are  enabled  to  show  that  the  punaluan  family  was  once  as 
wide-spread  as  the  Turanian  system  of  consanguinity.  To 
the  organization  into  gentes  and  the  punaluan  family,  the 
Turanian  system  of  consanguinity  must  be  ascribed.  It  will 
be  seen  in  the  sequel  that  this  system  was  formed  out  of 
the  Malayan,  by  changing  those  relationships  only  which 
resulted  from  the  previous  intermarriage  of  brothers  and 
sisters,  own  and  collateral,  and  which  were,  in  fact,  changed 
by  the  gentes  ;  thus  proving  the  direct  connection  between 
them.  The  powerful  influence  of  the  gentile  organization 
upon  society,  and  particularly  upon  the  punaluan  group,  is 
demonstrated  by  this  change  of  systems. 

The  Turanian  system  is  simply  stupendous.  It  recog- 
nizes all  the  relationships  known  under  the  Aryan  system, 
besides  an  additional  number  unnoticed  by  the  latter,  Con- 
sanguinei,  near  and  remote,  are  classified  into  categories; 
and  are  traced,  by  rrieans  peculiar  to  the  system,  far  beyond 
the  ordinary  range  of  the  Aryan  system.  In  familiar  and 
in  formal  salutation,  the  people  address  each  other  by  the 
term  of  relationship,  and  never  by  the  personal  name,  which 
tends  to  spread  abroad  a  knowledge  of  the  system  as  well  as 
to  preserve,  by  constant  recognition,  the  relationship  of  the 
most  distant  kindred.  Where  no  relationship  exists,  the 
form  of  salutation  is  simply  "  my  friend."  No  other  system 
of  consanguinity  found  among  men  approaches  it  in  elabo- 
rateness of  discrimination  or  in  the  extent  of  special  char- 
acteristics. 

When  the  American  aborigines  were  discovered,  the  fam- 
ily among  them  had  passed  out  of  the  punaluan  into  the 
syndyasmian  form  ;  so  that  the  relationships  recognized  by 
the  system  of  consanguinity  were  not  those,  in  a  number 
of  cases,  which  actually  existed  in  the  syndyasmian  family. 
It   was  an  exact  repetition  of  what  had  occurred  under  the 


388  ANCIENT  SOCIETY. 

Malayan  system,  where  the  family  had  passed  out  of  the 
consanguine  into  the  punaluan,  the  system  of  consanguinity 
remaining  unchanged ;  so  that  while  the  relationships  given 
in  the  Malayan  system  were  those  which  actually  existed 
in  the  consanguine  family,  they  were  untrue  to  a  part  of 
those  in  the  punaluan  family.  In  like  manner,  while  the 
relationships  given  in  the  Turanian  system  are  those  which 
actually  existed  in  the  punaluan  family,  they  were  untrue 
to  a  part  of  those  in  the  syndyasmian.  The  form  of  the 
family  advances  faster  of  necessity  than  systems  of  consan- 
guinity, which  follow  to  record  the  family  relationships.  As 
the  establishment  of  the  punaluan  family  did  not  furnish 
adequate  motives  to  reform  the  Malayan  system,  so  the 
growth  of  the  syndyasmian  family  did  not  supply  adequate 
motives  to  reform  the  Turanian.  It  required  an  institution 
as  great  as  the  gentile  organization  to  change  the  Malayan 
system  into  the  Turanian;  and  it  required  an  institution  as 
great  as  property  in  the  concrete,  with  its  rights  of  owner- 
ship and  of  inheritance,  together  with  the  monogamian 
family  which  it  created,  to  overthrow  the  Turanian  system 
of  consanguinity  and  substitute  the  Aryan. 

In  further  course  of  time  a  third  great  system  of  con- 
sanguinity came  in,  which  may  be  called,  at  pleasure,  the 
Aryan,  Semitic,  or  Uralian,  and  probably  superseded  a 
prior  Turanian  system  among  the  principal  nations,  who 
afterwards  attained  civilization.  It  is  the  system  which 
defines  the  relationships  in  the  monogamian  family.  This 
system  was  not  based  upon  the  Turanian,  as  the  latter  was 
upon  the  Malayan ;  but  it  superseded  among  civilized  na- 
tions a  previous  Turanian  system,  as  can  be  shown  by  other 
proofs. 

The  last  four  forms  of  the  family  have  existed  within  the 
historical  period  ;  but  the  first,  the  consanguine,  has  disap- 
peared. Its  ancient  existence,  however,  can  be  deduced 
from  the  Malayan  system  of  consanguinity.  We  have 
then  three  radical  forms  of  the  family,  which  represent 
three  great  and  essentially  different  conditions  of  life,  with 
three  different  and  well-marked   systems  of  consanguinity, 


THE  ANCIENT  FA  MIL  Y.  389 

sufficient  to  prove  the  existence  of  these  families,  if  they 
contained  the  only  proofs  remaining.  This  affirmation  will 
serve  to  draw  attention  to  the  singular  permanence  and 
persistency  of  systems  of  consanguinity,  and  to  the  value  of 
the  evidence  they  embody  with  respect  to  the  condition  of 
ancient  society. 

Each  of  these  families  ran  a  long  course  in  the  tribes  of 
mankind,  with  a  period  of  infancy,  of  maturity,  and  of 
decadence.  The  monogamian  family  o\ves  its  origin  to 
property,  as  the  syndyasmian,  which  contained  its  germ, 
owed  its  origin  to  the  gens.  When  the  Grecian  tribes  first 
came  under  historical  notice,  the  monogamian  family  ex- 
isted; but  it  did  not  become  completely  established  until 
positive  legislation  had  determined  its  status  and  its  rights. 
The  growth  of  the  idea  of  property  in  the  human  mind, 
through  its  creation  and  enjoyment,  and  especially  through 
the  settlement  of  legal  rights  with  respect  to  its  inherit- 
ance, are  intimately  connected  with  the  establishment  of 
this  form  of  the  family.  Property  became  sufficiently  pow- 
erful in  its  influence  to  touch  the  organic  structure  of  so- 
ciety. Certainty  with  respect  to  the  paternity  of  children 
would  now  have  a  significance  unknown  in  previous  con- 
ditions. Marriage  between  single  pairs  had  existed  from 
the  Older  Period  of  barbarism,  under  the  form  of  pairing 
during  the  pleasure  of  the  parties.  It  had  tended  to  grow 
more  stable  as  ancient  society  advanced,  with  the  improve- 
ment of  institutions,  and  with  the  progress  of  inventions 
and  discoveries  into  higher  successive  conditions  ;  but  the 
essential  element  of  the  monogamian  family,  an  exclusive 
cohabitation,  was  still  wanting.  Man  far  back  in  barbar- 
ism began  to  exact  fidelity  from  the  wife,  under  savage 
penalties,  but  he  claimed  exemption  for  himself.  The  obli- 
gation is  necessarily  reciprocal,  and  its  performance  correla- 
tive. Among  the  Homeric  Greeks,  the  condition  of  woman 
in  the  family  relation  was  one  of  isolation  and  marital  dom- 
ination, with  imperfect  rights  and  excessive  inequality.  A 
comparison  of  the  Grecian  family,  at  successive  epochs, 
from   the  Homeric  age  to  that  of  Pericles,  shows  a  sensible 


390 


ANCIENT  SOCIETY. 


improvement,  with  its  gradual  settlement  into  a  defined 
institution.  The  modern  family  is  an  unquestionable  im- 
provement upon  that  of  the  Greeks  and  Romans  ;  because 
woman  has  gained  immensely  in  social  position.  From 
standing  in  the  relation  of  a  daughter  to  her  husband,  as 
among  the  Greeks  and  Romans,  she  has  drawn  nearer  to  an 
equality  in  dignity  and  in  acknowledged  personal  rights. 
We  have  a  record  of  the  monogamian  family,  running  back 
nearly  three  thousand  years,  during  which,  it  may  be 
claimed,  there  has  been  a  gradual  but  continuous  improve- 
ment in  its  character.  It  is  destined  to  progress  still 
further,  until  the  equality  of  the  sexes  is  acknowledged, 
and  the  equities  of  the  marriage  relation  are  completely 
recognized.  We  have  similar  evidence,  though  not  so  per- 
fect, of  the  progressive  improvement  of  the  syndyasmian 
family,  which,  commencing  in  a  low  type,  ended  in  the 
monogamian.  These  facts  should  be  held  in  remembrance, 
because  they  are  essential  in  this  discussion. 

In  previous  chapters  attention  has  been  called  to  the  stu- 
pendous conjugal  system  which  fastened  itself  upon  man- 
kind in  the  infancy  of  their  existence,  and  followed  them 
down  to  civilization  ;  although  steadily  losing  ground  with 
the  progressive  improvement  of  society.  The  ratio  of  hu- 
man progress  may  be  measured  to  some  extent  by  the 
degree  of  the  reduction  of  this  system  through  the  moral 
elements  of  society  arrayed  against  it.  Each  successive 
form  of  the  family  and  of  marriage  is  a  significant  registra- 
tion of  this  reduction.  After  it  was  reduced  to  zero,  and 
not  until  then,  was  the  monogamian  family  possible.  This 
family  can  be  traced  far  back  in  the  Later  Period  of  barbar- 
ism, where  it  disappears  in  the  syndyasmian. 

Some  impression  is  thus  gained  of  the  ages  which  elapsed 
while  these  two  forms  of  the  family  were  running  their 
courses  of  growth  and  development.  But  the  creation  of 
five  successive  forms  of  the  family,  each  differing  from  the 
other,  and  belonging  to  conditions  of  society  entirely  dis- 
simihir,  augments  our  conception  of  the  length  of  the  pe- 
riods during  which   the   idea  of  the  family  was   developed 


THE  ANCIENT  FAMIL  V. 

from  the  consanguine,  through  intermediate  forms,  into  the 
still  advancing  monogamian.  No  institution  of  mankind 
has  had  a  more  remarkable  or  more  eventful  history,  or  em- 
bodies the  results  of  a  more  prolonged  and  diversified  ex- 
perience. It  required  the  highest  mental  and  moral  efforts 
through  numberless  ages  of  time  to  maintain  its  existence 
and  carry  it  through  its  several  stages  into  its  present  form. 
Marriage  passed  from  the  punaluan  through  the  syndyas- 
mian  into  the  monogamian  form  without  any  material 
change  in  the  Turanian  system  of  consanguinity.  This  sys- 
tem, which  records  the  relationships  in  punaluan  families, 
remained  substantially  unchanged  until  the  establishment 
of  the  monogamian  family,  when  it  became  almost  totally 
untrue  to  the  nature  of  descents,  and  even  a  scandal  upon 
monogamy.  To  illustrate  :  Under  the  Malayan  system  a 
man  calls  his  brother's  son  his  son,  because  his  brother's 
wife  is  his  wife  as  well  as  his  brother's  ;  and  his  sister's  son 
is  also  his  son  because  his  sister  is  his  wife.  Under  the 
Turanian  system  his  brother's  son  is  still  his  son,  and  for  the 
same  reason,  but  his  sister's  son  is  now  his  nephew,  because 
under  the  gentile  organization  his  sister  has  ceased  to  be 
his  wife.  Among  the  Iroquois,  where  the  family  is  sj'ndyas- 
mian,  a  man  still  calls  his  brother's  son  his  son,  although 
his  brother's  wife  has  ceased  to  be  his  wife  ;  and  so  with  a 
large  number  of  relationships  equally  inconsistent  with  the 
existing  form  of  marriage.  The  system  has  survived  the 
usages  in  which  it  originated,  and  still  maintains  itself 
among  them,  although  untrue  in  the  main,  to  descents  as 
they  now  exist.  No  motive  adequate  to  the  overthrow  of 
a  great  and  ancient  system  of  consanguinity  had  arisen. 
Monogamy  when  it  appeared  furnished  that  motive  to  the 
Aryan  nations  as  they  drew  near  to  civilization.  It  assured 
the  paternity  of  children  and  the  legitimacy  of  heirs.  A 
reformation  of  the  Turanian  system  to  accord  with  monoga- 
mian descents  was  impossible.  It  was  false  to  monogamy 
through  and  through.  A  remedy,  however,  existed,  at  once 
simple  and  complete.  The  Turanian  system  was  dropped, 
and    the  descriptive    m.ethod,  which    the    Turanian  tribes 


ANCIENT  SOCIETY. 

always  employed  when  they  wished  to  make  a  given  rela- 
tionship specific,  was  substituted  in  its  place.  They  fell 
back  upon  the  bare  facts  of  consanguinity  and  described 
the  relationship  of  each  person  by  a  combination  of  the 
primary  terms.  Thus,  they  said  brother's  son,  brother's 
grandson  ;  father's  brother,  and  father's  brother's  son. 
Each  phrase  described  a  person,  leaving  the  relationship 
a  matter  of  implication.  Such  was  the  system  of  the  Aryan 
nations,  as  we  find  it  in  its  most  ancient  form  among  the 
Grecian,  Latin,  Sanskritic,  Germanic,  and  Celtic  tribes ; 
and  also  in  the  Semitic,  as  witness  the  Hebrew  Scripture 
genealogies.  Traces  of  the  Turanian  system,  some  of 
which  have  been  referred  to,  remained  among  the  Aryan 
and  Semitic  nations  down  to  the  historical  period  ;  but  it 
was  essentially  uprooted,  and  the  descriptive  system  substi- 
tuted in  its  place. 

To  illustrate  and  confirm  these  several  propositions  it 
will  be  necessary  to  take  up,  in  the  order  of  their  origina- 
tion, these  three  systems  and  the  three  radical  forms  of  the 
family,  which  appeared  in  connection  with  them  respec- 
tively.    They  mutually  interpret  each  other. 

A  system  of  consanguinity  considered  in  itself  is  of  but 
little  importance.  Limited  in  the  number  of  ideas  it  em- 
bodies, and  resting  apparently  upon  simple  suggestions,  it 
would  seem  incapable  of  affording  useful  information,  and 
much  less  of  throwing  light  upon  the  early  condition  of 
mankind.  Such,  at  least,  would  be  the  natural  conclusion 
when  the  relationships  of  a  group  of  kindred  are  considered 
in  the  abstract.  But  when  the  system  of  many  tribes  is 
compared,  and  it  is  seen  to  rank  as  a  domestic  institution, 
and  to  have  transmitted  itself  through  immensely  pro- 
tracted periods  of  time,  it  assumes  a  very  different  aspect. 
Three  such  systems,  one  succeeding  the  other,  represent 
the  entire  growth  of  the  family  from  the  consanguine  to 
the  monogamian.  Since  we  have  a  right  to  suppose  that 
each  one  expresses  the  actual  relationships  which  existed  in 
the  family  at  the  time  of  its  establishment,  it  reveals,  in 
turn,  the  form  of  marriage  and  of  the  famil}'  which  then  pre- 


THE  ANCIENT  TAMIL  Y.  3X95 

vailed,  although  both  may  have  advanced  into  a  higher  stage 
while  the  system  of  consanguinity  remained  unchanged. 

It  will  be  noticed,  further,  that  these  systems  are  natural 
growths  with  the  progress  of  society  from  a  lower  into  a 
higher  condition,  the  change  in  each  case  being  marked  by 
the  appearance  of  some  institution  affecting  deeply  the  con- 
stitution of  society.  The  relationship  of  mother  and  child, 
of  brother  and  sister,  and  of  grandmother  and  grandchild 
have  been  ascertainable  in  all  ages  with  entire  certainty ; 
but  those  of  father  and  child,  and  of  grandfather  and  grand- 
child were  not  ascertainable  with  certainty  until  monogamy 
contributed  the  highest  assurance  attainable.  A  number 
of  persons  would  stand  in  each  of  these  relations  at  the 
same  time  as  equally  probable  when  marriage  was  in  the 
group.  In  the  rudest  conditions  of  ancient  society  these 
relationships  would  be  perceived,  both  the  actual  and  the 
probable,  and  terms  would  be  invented  to  express  them.  A 
system  of  consanguinity  would  result  in  time  from  the  con- 
tinued application  of  these  terms  to  persons  thus  formed 
into  a  group  of  kindred.  But  the  form  of  the  system,  as 
before  stated,  would  depend  upon  the  form  of  marriage. 
Where  marriages  w.ere  between  brothers  and  sisters,  own  and 
collateral,  in  the  group,  the  family  would  be  consanguine, 
and  the  system  of  consanguinity,  Malayan.  Where  mar- 
riages were  between  several  sisters  with  each  other's  hus- 
bands in  a  group,  and  between  several  brothers  with  each 
other's  wives  in  a  group,  the  family  would  be  punaluan,  and 
the  system  of  consanguinity  Turanian  ;  and  where  marriage 
was  between  single  pairs,  with  an  exclusive  cohabitation,  the 
family  would  be  monogamian,  and  the  system  of  consan- 
guinity would  be  Aryan.  Consequently  the  three  systems 
are  founded  upon  three  forms  of  marriage  ;  and  they  seek  to 
express,  as  near  as  the  fact  could  be  known,  the  actual  rela- 
tionship which  existed  between  persons  under  these  forms 
of  marriage  respectively.  It  will  be  seen,  therefore,  that 
they  do  not  rest  upon  nature,  but  upon  marriage  ;  not  upon 
fictitious  considerations,  but  upon  fact ;  and  that  each  in  its 
turn  is  a  logical  as  well  as  truthful  system.     The  evidence 


■A 


ANCIENT  SOCIETY. 


they  contain  is  of  the  highest  value,  as  well  as  of  the  most 
suggestive  character.  It  reveals  the  condition  of  ancient 
society  in  the  plainest  manner  with  unerring  directness. 

These  systems  resolve  themselves  into  two  ultimate  forms, 
fundamentally  distinct.  One  of  these  is  classificatory,  and 
the  other  descriptive.  Under  the  first,  consanguinei  are 
never  described,  but  are  classified  into  categories,  irrespec- 
tive of  their  nearness  or  remoteness  in  degree  to  Ego ;  and 
the  same  term  of  relationship  is  applied  to  all  the  persons  in 
the  same  category.  Thus  my  own  brothers,  and  the  sons 
of  my  father's  brothers  are  all  alike  my  brothers  ;  my  own 
sisters,  and  the  daughters  of  my  mother's  sisters  are  all 
alike  my  sisters  ;  such  is  the  classification  under  both  the 
Malayan  and  Turanian  systems.  In  the  second  case  con- 
sanguinei are  described  either  by  the  primary  terms  of  re- 
lationship or  a  combination  of  these  terms,  thus  making  the 
relationship  of  each  person  specific.  Thus  we  say  brother's 
son,  father's  brother,  and  father's  brother's  son.  Such  was 
the  system  of  the  Aryan,  Semitic,  and  Uralian  families, 
which  came  in  with  monogamy.  A  small  amount  of  classi- 
fication was  subsequently  introduced  by  the  invention  of 
common  terms;  but  the  earliest  form  of  the  system,  of 
which  the  Erse  and  Scandinavian  are  typical,  was  purely 
descriptive,  as  illustrated  by  the  above  examples.  The 
radical  difference  between  the  two  systems  resulted  from 
plural  marriages  in  the  group  in  one  case,  and  from  single 
marriages  between  single  pairs  in  the  other. 

While  the  descriptive  system  is  the  same  in  the  Aryan, 
Semitic,  and  Uralian  families,  the  classificatory  has  two 
distinct  forms.  First,  the  Malayan,  which  is  the  oldest  in 
point  of  time  ;  and  second,  the  Turanian  and  Ganowanian, 
which  are  essentially  alike  and  were  formed  by  the  modifica- 
tion of  a  previous  Malayan  system. 

A  brief  reference  to  our  own  system  of  consanguinity 
will  bring  into  notice  the  principles  which  underlie  all 
systems. 

Relationships^ are  of  two  kinds:  First,  by  consanguinity 
or  blood ;  second,  by  affinity  or  marriage.    _Coj[isan^yja4++ty 


THE  ANCIENT  TAMIL  Y.  395 

isjilso  of  two  ldnd^^injsal..aiid..xoilateral.  Lineal  consan- 
guinity is  the  connection  which  subsists  among  persons  of 
whom  one  is  descended  from  the  other.  Collateral  consan- 
guinity is  the  connection  which  exists  between  persons  who 
are  descended  from  common  ancestors,  but  not  from  each 
other.     Marriage  relationships  exist  by  custom. 

Not  to  enter  too  specially  into  the  subject,  it  may 
be  stated  generally  that  in  every  system  of  consanguinity, 
where  marriage  between  single  pairs  exists,  there  must  be  a 
lineal  and  several  collateral  lines,  the  latter  diverging  from 
the  former.  Each  person  is  the  centre  of  a  group  of  kin- 
dred, the  Ego  from  whom  the  degree  of  relationship  of  each 
person  is  reckoned,  and  to  whom  the  relationship  returns. 
His  position  is  necessarily  in  the  lineal  line,  and  that  line  is 
vertical.  Upon  it  may  be  inscribed,  above  and  below  him, 
his  several  ancestors  and  descendants  in  a  direct  series  from 
father  to  son,  and  these  persons  together  will  constitute  his 
right  lineal  male  line.  Out  of  this  trunk  line  emerge  the 
several  collateral  lines,  male  and  female,  which  are  numbered 
outwardly.  It  will  be  sufficient  for  a  perfect  knowledge 
of  the  system  to  recognize  the  main  lineal  line,  and  a  single 
male  and  female  branch  of  the  first  five  collateral  lines,  in- 
cluding those  on  the  father's  side,  and  on  the  mother's  side, 
and  proceeding  in  each  case  from  the  parent  to  one  only  of 
his  or  her  children,  although  it  will  include  but  a  small  por- 
tion of  the  kindred  of  Ego,  either  in  the  ascending  or  de- 
scending series.  An  attempt  to  follow  all  the  divisions  and 
branches  of  the  several  collateral  lines,  which  increase  in 
number  in  the  ascending  series  in  a  geometrical  ratio,  would 
not  render  the  system  more  intelligible. 

The  first  collateral  line,  male,  consists  of  my  brother  and 
his  descendants;  and  the  first,  female,  of  my  sister  and  her 
descendants.  The  second  collateral  line,  male,  on  the  fa- 
ther's side,  consists  of  my  father's  brother  and  his  descend- 
ants ;  and  the  second,  female,  of  my  father's  sister  and  her 
descendants :  the  second,  male,  on  the  mother's  side,  is 
composed  of  my  mother's  brother  and  his  descendants ; 
and    the    second,   female,   of  my   mother's    sister   and    her 


396 


ANCIENT  SOCIETY. 


descendants.  The  third  collateral  line,  male,  on  the  father's 
side,  consists  of  my  grandfather's  brother  and  his  descend- 
ants ;  and  the  third,  female,  of  my  grandfather's  sister  and 
her  descendants  :  on  the  mother's  side  the  same  line,  in 
its  male  and  female  branches,  is  composed  of  my  grand- 
mother's brother  and  sister  and  their  descendants  respec- 
tively. It  will  be  noticed,  in  the  last  case,  that  we  have 
turned  out  of  the  lineal  line  on  the  father's  side  into  that 
on  the  mother's  side.  The  fourth  collateral  line,  male  and 
female,  commences  with  great-grandfather's  brother  and 
sister,  and  great-grandmother's  brother  and  sister:  and 
the  fifth  collateral  line,  male  and  female,  with  great-great- 
grandfather's brother  and  sister;  and  with  great-great-grand- 
mother's brother  and  sister,  and  each  line  and  branch  is  run 
out  in  the  same  manner  as  the  third.  These  five  lines,  with 
the  lineal,  embrace  the  great  body  of  our  kindred,  who  are 
within  the  range  of  practical  recognition. 

An  additional  explanation  of  these  several  lines  is  re- 
quired. If  I  have  several  brothers  and  sisters,  they,  with 
their  descendants,  constitute  as  many  lines,  each  independ- 
ent of  the  other,  as  I  have  brothers  and  sisters  ;  but  alto- 
gether they  form  my  first  collateral  line  in  two  branches,  a 
male  and  a  female.  In  like  manner,  the  several  brothers 
and  sisters  of  my  father,  and  of  my  mother,  with  their 
respective  descendants,  make  up  as  many  lines,  each  inde- 
pendent of  the  other,  as  there  are  brothers  and  sisters ;  but 
they  all  unite  to  form  the  second  collateral  line  in  two 
divisions,  that  on  the  father's  side,  and  that  on  the  mother's 
side  ;  and  in  four  principal  branches,  two  male,  and  two 
female.  If  the  third  collateral  line  were  run  out  fully,  in  its 
several  branches,  it  would  give  four  general  divisions  of 
ancestors,  and  eight  principal  branches  ;  and  the  number 
of  each  would  increase  in  the  same  ratio  in  each  successive 
collateral  line. 

With  such  a  mass  of  divisions  and  branches,  embracing 
such  a  multitude  of  consanguinci,  it  will  be  seen  at  once 
that  a  method  of  arrangement  and  of  description  which 
maintained    each   distinct   and  rendered  the   whole  intclli- 


THE  ANCIENT  TAMIL  Y.  397 

gible  would  be  no  ordinary  achievement.  This  task  was  per- 
fectly accomplished  by  the  Roman  civilians,  whose  method 
has  been  adopted  by  the  principal  European  nations,  and  is 
so  entirely  simple  as  to  elicit  admiration.'  The  develop- 
ment of  the  nomenclature  to  the  requisite  extent  must  have 
been  so  extremely  difficult  that  it  would  probably  never  have 
occurred  except  under  the  stimulus  of  an  urgent  necessity, 
namely,  the  need  of  a  code  of  descents  to  regulate  the  inher- 
itance of  property. 

To  render  the  new  form  attainable,  it  was  necessary  to 
discriminate  the  relationships  of  uncle  and  aunt  on  the 
father's  side  and  on  the  mother's  side  by  concrete  terms,  an 
achievement  made  in  a  few  only  of  the  languages  of  man- 
kind. These  terms  finally  appeared  among  the  Romans  in 
patruus  and  amita,  for  uncle  and  aunt  on  the  father's  side, 
and  in  atmnculus  and  inatertera  for  the  same  on  the  mother's 
side.  After  these  were  invented,  the  improved  Roman 
method  of  describing  consanguinei  became  established." 
It  has  been  adopted,  in  its  essential  features,  by  the  several 
branches  of  the  Aryan  family,  with  the  exception  of  the 
Erse,  the  Scandinavian,  and  the  Slavonic. 

The  Aryan  system  necessarily  took  the  descriptive  form 
Avhen  the  Turanian  was  abandoned,  as  in  the  Erse.  Every 
relationship  in  the  lineal  and  first  five  collateral  lines,  to 
the  number  of  one  hundred  and  more,  stands  independent, 
requiring  as  many  descriptive  phases,  or  the  gradual  inven- 
tion of  common  terms. 

It  will  be  noticed  that  the  two  radical  forms — the  classi- 
ficatory  and  the  descriptive — yield  nearly  the  exact  line  of 
demarkation  between  the  barbarous  and  civilized  nations. 
Such  a  result  might   have  been  predicted  from   the  law  of 


^  Pandects,  lib.  xxxviii,  title  x.  De  gradibus,  et  ad  finibus  et  nominibus 
eorum :  and  Insiitziies  of  yusdniafi,  lib.  iii,  title  vi.  De  gradibus  cogna- 
tionem. 

*  Our  term  aunt  is  from  amita,  and  uncle  from  avunculus.  Avtts,  grand- 
father, gives  av'Miculus  by  adding  the  diminutive.  It  tlierefore  signifies  a 
'  little  grandfather."  Matertera  is  supposed  to  be  derived  from  ?nater  and  altera, 
■=■  another  mother. 


398 


ANCIENT  SOCIETY. 


progress  revealed  by  these  several  forms  of  marriage  and 
of  the  family. 

Systems  of  consanguinity  are  neither  adopted,  modified, 
nor  laid  aside  at  pleasure.  They  are  identified  in  their  origin 
with  organic  movements  of  society  which  produced  a  great 
change  of  condition.  When  a  particular  form  had  come  into 
general  use,  with  its  nomenclature  invented  and  its  methods 
settled,  it  would,  from  the  nature  of  the  case,  be  very  slow  to 
change.  Every  human  being  is  the  centre  of  a  group  of 
kindred,  and  therefore  every  person  is  compelled  to  use  and 
to  understand  the  prevailing  system.  A  change  in  any  one 
of  these  relationships  would  be  extremely  difficult.  This 
tendency  to  permanence  is  increased  by  the  fact  that  these 
systems  exist  by  custom  rather  than  legal  enactment,  as 
growths  rather  than  artificial  creations,  and  therefore  a  mo- 
tive to  change  must  be  as  universal  as  the  usage.  While 
every  person  is  a  party  to  the  system,  the  channel  of  its 
transmission  is  the  blood.  Powerful  influences  thus  existed 
to  perpetuate  the  system  long  after  the  conditions  under 
which  each  originated  had  been  modified  or  had  altogether 
disappeared.  This  element  of  permanence  gives  certainty 
to  conclusions  drawn  from  the  facts,  and  has  preserved  and 
brought  forward  a  record  of  ancient  society  which  otherwise 
would  have  been  entirely  lost  to  human  knowledge. 

It  will  not  be  supposed  that  a  system  so  elaborate  as  the 
Turanian  could  be  maintained  in  different  nations  and  fami- 
lies of  mankind  in  absolute  identicalness.  Divergence  in 
minor  particulars  is  found,  but  the  radical  features  are,  in 
the  main,  constant.  The  system  of  consanguinity  of  the  Ta- 
mil people,  of  South  India,  and  that  of  the  Seneca-Iroquois, 
of  New  York,  are  still  identical  through  two  hundred  rela- 
tionships ;  an  application  of  natural  logic  to  the  facts  of  the 
social  condition  without  a  parallel  in  the  history  of  the  hu- 
man mind.  There  is  also  a  modified  form  of  the  system, 
which  stands  alone  and  tells  its  own  story.  It  is  that  of  the 
Hindi,  Bengali,  Marathi,  and  other  people  of  North  India, 
formed  by  a  combination  of  the  Aryan  and  Turanian  systems. 
A  civilized  people,  the  Brahmins,  coalesced  with  a  barbarous 


THE  ANCIENT  TAMIL  V.  399 

stock,  and  lost  their  language  in  the  new  vernaculars  named, 
which  retain  the  grammatical  structure  of  the  aboriginal 
speech,  to  which  the  Sanskrit  gave  ninety  per  cent,  of  its  vo- 
cables. It  brought  their  two  systems  of  consanguinity  into 
collision,  one  founded  upon  monogamy  or  syndyasmy,  and 
the  other  upon  plural  marriages  in  the  group,  resulting  in  a 
mixed  system.  The  aborigines,  who  preponderated  in  num- 
ber, impressed  upon  it  a  Turanian  character,  while  the  San- 
skrit element  introduced  such  modifications  as  saved  the 
monogamian  family  from  reproach.  The  Slavonic  stock 
seems  to  have  been  derived  from  this  intermixture  of  races. 
A  system  of  consanguinity  which  exhibits  but  two  phases 
through  the  periods  of  savagery  and  of  barbarism  and  pro- 
jects a  third  but  modified  form  far  into  the  period  of  civili- 
zation, manifests  an  element  of  permanence  calculated  to 
arrest  attention. 

It  will  not  be  necessary  to  consider  the  patriarchal  family 
founded  upon  polygamy.  From  its  limited  prevalence  it 
made  but  little  impression  upon  human  affairs. 

The  house  life  of  savages  and  barbarians  has  not  been 
studied  with  the  attention  the  subject  deserves.  Among 
the  Indian  tribes  of  North  America  the  family  was  syndy- 
asmian;  but  they  lived  generally  in  joint-tenement  houses 
and  practiced  communism  within  the  household.  As  we 
descend  the  scale  in  the  direction  of  the  punaluan  and  con- 
sanguine families,  the  household  group  becomes  larger, 
with  more  persons  crowded  together  in  the  same  apartment. 
The  coast  tribes  in  Venezuela,  among  whom  the  family 
seems  to  have  been  punaluan,  are  represented  by  the  dis- 
coverers as  living  in  bell-shaped  houses,  each  containing  a 
hundred  and  sixty  persons."  Husbands  and  wives  lived 
together  in  a  group  in  the  same  house,  and  generally  in 
the  same  apartment.  The  inference  is  reasonable  that  this 
mode  of  house  life  was  very  general  in  savagery. 

An  explanation  of  the  origin  of  these  systems  of  consan- 
guinity and  affinity  will  be  offered  in  succeeding  chapters. 
They  will  be  grounded  upon  the  forms  of  marriage  and  of 

'  Herrera's  Hist,  of  Amer.,  i,   216,  218,  348. 


400 


A  NCIENT  SO  CIE  T  Y. 


the  family  which  produced  them,  the  existence  of  these 
forms  being  assumed.  If  a  satisfactory  explanation  of  each 
system  is  thus  obtained,  the  antecedent  existence  of  each 
form  of  marriage  and  of  the  family  may  be  deduced  from 
the  system  it  explains.  In  a  final  chapter  an  attempt  will 
be  made  to  articulate  in  a  sequence  the  principal  institu- 
tions which  have  contributed  to  the  growth  of  the  family 
through  successive  forms.  Our  knowledge  of  the  early  con- 
dition of  mankind  is  still  so  limited  that  we  must  take  the 
best  indications  attainable.  The  sequence  to  be  presented 
is,  in  part,  hypothetical ;  but  it  is  sustained  by  a  sufficient 
body  of  evidence  to  commend  it  to  consideration.  Its 
complete  establishment  must  be  left  to  the  results  of  future 
ethnological  investigations. 


CHAPTER  II. 

THE  CONSANGUINE   FAMILY. 

Former.  Existence  of  this  Family. — Proved  by  Malayan  System 
OF  Consanguinity. — Hawaiian  System  used  as  Typical. — Five  Grades 
OF  Relations. — Details  of  System. — Explained  by  the  Intermarriage 
OF  Brothers  and  Sisters  in  a  Group. — Early  State  of  Society  in  the 
Sandwich  Islands. — Nine  Grades  of  Relations  of  the  Chinese. — 
Identical  in  Principle  with  the  Hawaiian. — Five  Grades  of  Relations 
IN  Ideal  Republic  of  Plato. — Table  of  Malayan  System  of  Consan- 
guinity and  Affinity. 

The  existence  of  the  Consanguine  family  must  be  proved 
by  other  evidence  than  the  production  of  the  fam.ily  itself. 
As  the  first  and  most  ancient  form  of  the  institution,  it  has 
ceased  to  exist  even  among  the  lowest  tribes  of  savages. 
It  belongs  to  a  condition  of  society  out  of  which  the  least 
advanced  portion  of  the  human  race  have  emerged.  Single 
instances  of  the  marriage  of  a  brother  and  sister  in  barbar- 
ous and  even  in  civilized  nations  have  occurred  within  the 
historical  period  ;  but  this  is  very  different  from  the  inter- 
marriage of  a  number  of  them  in  a  group,  in  a  state  of  so- 
ciety in  which  such  marriages  predominated  and  formed 
the  basis  of  a  social  system.  There  are  tribes  of  savages  in 
the  Polynesian  and  Papuan  Islands,  and  in  Australia,  seem- 
ingly not  far  removed  from  the  primitive  state;  but  they 
have  advanced  beyond  the  condition  the  consanguine  fam- 
ily implies.  Where,  then,  it  may  be  asked,  is  the  evidence 
that  such  a  family  ever  existed  among  mankind  ?  What- 
ever proof  is  adduced  must  be  conclusive,  otherwise  the 
26 


402  ANCIENT  SOCIETY. 

proposition  is  not  established.  It  is  found  in  a  system  of 
consanguinity  and  affinity  which  has  outlived  for  unnum- 
bered centuries  the  marriage  customs  in  which  it  originated, 
and  which  remains  to  attest  the  fact  that  such  a  family 
existed  when  the  system  was  formed. 

That  system  is  the  Malayan.  It  defines  the  relationships 
that  would  exist  in  a  consanguine  family;  and  it  demands 
the  existence  of  such  a  family  to  account  for  its  own  exist- 
ence. Moreover,  it  proves  with  moral  certainty  the  exist- 
ence of  a  consanguine  family  when  the  system  was  formed. 

This  system,  which  is  the  most  archaic  yet  discovered, 
will  now  be  taken  up  for  the  purpose  of  showing,  from  its 
relationships,  the  principal  facts  stated.  This  family,  also, 
is  the  most  archaic  form  of  the  institution  of  which  any 
knowledge  remains. 

Such  a  remarkable  record  of  the  condition  of  ancient 
society  would  not  have  been  preserved  to  the  present  time 
but  for  the  singular  permanence  of  systems  of  consanguin- 
ity. The  Aryan  system,  for  example,  has  stood  near  three 
thousand  years  without  radical  change,  and  would  endure  a 
hundred  thousand  years  in  the  future,  provided  the  mono- 
gamian  family,  whose  relationships  it  defines,  should  so  long 
remain.  It  describes  the  relationships  which  actually  exist 
under  monogamy,  and  is  therefore  incapable  of  change,  so 
long  as  the  family  remains  as  at  present  constituted.  If  a 
new  form  of  the  family  should  appear  among  Aryan  nations, 
it  would  not  affect  the  present  system  of  consanguinity  until 
after  it  became  universal;  and  while  in  that  case  it  might 
modify  the  system  in  some  particulars,  it  would  not  over- 
throw it,  unless  the  new  family  were  radically  different 
from  the  monogamian.  It  was  precisely  the  same  with 
its  immediate  predecessor,  the  Turanian  system,  and  be- 
fore that  with  the  Malayan,  the  predecessor  of  the  Tura- 
nian in  the  order  of  derivative  growth.  An  antiquity  of 
unknown  duration  may  be  assigned  to  the  Malayan  sys- 
tem which  came  in  with  the  consanguine  family,  remained 
for  an  indefinite  period  after  the  punaluan  family  appeared, 
and  seems  to  have   been   displaced    in   other  tribes   by  the 


THE  CONSANGUINE  FAMILY.  403 

Turanian,  with  the  establishment  of  the  organization  into 
gentes. 

The  inhabitants  of  Polynesia  are  included  in  the  Malayan 
family.  Their  system  of  consanguinity  has  been  called  the 
Malayan,  although  the  Malays  proper  have  modified  their 
own  in  some  particulars.  Among  the  Hawaiians  and  other 
Polynesian  tribes  there  still  exists  in  daily  use  a  system  of 
consanguinity  which  is  given  in  the  Table,  and  may  be  pro- 
nounced the  oldest  known  among  mankind.  The  Hawaiian 
and  Rotuman  '  forms  are  used  as  typical  of  the  system.  It 
is  the  simplest,  and  therefore  the  oldest  form,  of  the  classi- 
ficatory  system,  and  reveals  the  primitive  form  on  which 
the  Turanian  and  Ganowanian  were  afterwards  engrafted. 

It  is  evident  that  the  Malayan  could  not  have  been  de- 
rived from  any  existing  system,  because  there  is  none,  of 
which  any  conception  can  be  formed,  more  elementary.  The 
only  blood  relationships  recognized  are  the  primary,  which 
are  five  in  number,  without  distinguishing  sex.  All  consan- 
guinei,  near  and  remote,  are  classified  under  these  relation- 
ships into  five  categories.  Thus,  myself,  my  brothers  and 
sisters,  and  my  first,  second,  third,  and  more  remote  male 
and  female  cousins,  are  the  first  grade  or  category.  All  these, 
without  distinction,  are  my  brothers  and  sisters.  The  word 
cousin  is  here  used  in  our  sense,  the  relationship  being  un- 
known in  Polynesia.  My  father  and  mother,  together  with 
their  brothers  and  sisters,  and  their  first,  second,  and  more 
remote  cousins,  are  the  second  grade.  All  these,  without 
distinction,  are  my  parents.  My  grandfathers  and  grand- 
mothers, on  the  father's  side  and  on  the  mother's  side, 
with  their  brothers  and  sisters,  and  their  several  cousins,  are 
the  third  grade.  All  these  are  my  grandparents.  Below  me, 
my  sons  and  daughters,  with  their  several  cousins,  as  before, 
are  the  fourth  grade.  All  these,  without  distinction,  are 
my  children.  My  grandsons  and  granddaughters,  with  their 
several  cousins,  are  the  fifth  grade.  All  these  in  like  manner 

'  The  Rotuman  is  herein  for  the  first  time  published.  It  was  worked  out  by 
the  Rev.  John  Osborn,  Wesleyan  missionary  at  Rotuma,  and  procured  and  for- 
warded to  the  author  by  the  Rev.  Lorimer  Fison,  of  Sydney,  Australia. 


404  ANCIENT  SOCIETY. 

are  my  grand-children.  Moreover,  all  the  individuals  of  the 
same  grade  are  brothers  and  sisters  to  each  other.  In  this 
manner  all  the  possible  kindred  of  any  given  person  are 
brought  into  five  categories;  each  person  applying  to  every 
other  person  in  the  same  category  with  himself  or  herself 
the  same  term  of  i"elationship.  Particular  attention  is  in- 
vited to  the  five  grades  of  relations  in  the  Malayan  system, 
because  the  same  classification  appears  in  the  "  Nine  Grades 
of  Relations  "  of  the  Chinese,  which  are  extended  so  as  to 
include  two  additional  ancestors  and  two  additional  de- 
scendants, as  will  elsewhere  be  shown.  A  fundamental  con- 
nection between  the  two  systems  is  thus  discovered. 

There  are  terms  in  Hawaiian  for  grandparent,  Kiipihtd ; 
for  ^3.reni,  Md  1*21  a  ;  for  c\\\\d,  Kaikec ;  and  for  grandchild^ 
Moopund.  Gender  is  expressed  by  adding  the  terms  Kdtta, 
for  male,  and  Wdhccna,  for  female  ;  thus,  Kiipiind  Kdiia  = 
grandparent  male,  and  Kiipund  Wdhccna,  grandparent  fe- 
male. They  are  equivalent  to  grandfather  and  grandmother, 
and  express  these  relationships  in  the  concrete.  Ancestors 
and  descendants,  above  and  below  those  named,  are  distin- 
guished numerically,  as  first,  second,  third,  when  it  is  neces- 
sary to  be  specific;  but  in  common  usage  Kjtpund  is  applied 
to  all  persons  above  grandparent,  and  Moopund  is  applied 
to  all  descendants  below  grandchild. 

The  relationships  of  brother  and  sister  are  conceived  in 
the  twofold  form  of  elder  and  younger,  and  separate  terms 
are  applied  to  each  ;  but  it  is  not  carried  out  with  entire 
completeness.  Thus,  in  Hawaiian,  from  which  the  illustra- 
tions will  be  taken,  we  have  : 

Elder  Brother,  Male  Speaking,  KaiMadna.    Female  Speaking,  Kaikiitiiina. 
Younger  Brother,      "  "       Kaikaina.  "  "     Kaikitncina. 

Elder  Sister,  "  "      Kai kiiwdheena.       "  "     Kciiknadna. 

Younger  Sister,         "  "      Kai kiizvdheena.       "  "     Kaikaina.^ 

It  will  be  observed  that  a  man  calls  his  elder  brother 
Kaikuadna,  and  that  a  woman  calls  her  elder  sister  the 
same  ;  that  a  man  calls  his  younger  brother  Kaikaina,  and  a 
woman  calls  her  younger  sister  the  same  :  hence  these  terms 

'  a  as  in  ale  ;  a  as  a  in  father  ;  S  as  a  in  at  ;  t  as  i  in  it ;  li  as  oo  in  food. 


THE  CONSANGUINE  FAMILY.  405 

are  in  common  gender,  and  suggest  the  same  idea  found 
in  the  Karen  system,  namely,  that  of  predecessor  and 
successor  in  birth.'  A  single  term  is  used  by  the  males  for 
elder  and  younger  sister,  and  a  single  term  by  the  females 
for  elder  and  younger  brother.  It  thus  appears  that  while 
a  man's  brothers  are  classified  into  elder  and  younger,  his 
sisters  are  not ;  and,  while  a  woman's  sisters  are  classified 
into  elder  and  younger,  her  brothers  are  not.  A  double  set 
of  terms  are  thus  developed,  one  of  which  is  used  by  the 
males  and  the  other  by  the  females,  a  peculiarity  which  re- 
appears in  the  system  of  a  number  of  Polynesian  tribes.^ 
Among  savage  and  barbarous  tribes  the  relationships  of 
brother  and  sister  are  seldom  conceived  in  the  abstract. 

The  substance  of  the  system  is  contained  in  the  five  cate- 
gories of  consanguinei ;  but  there  are  special  features  to  be 
noticed  which  will  require  the  presentation  in  detail  of  the 
first  three  collateral  lines.  After  these  are  shown  the  con- 
nection of  the  system  with  the  intermarriage  of  brothers 
and  sisters,  own  and  collateral,  in  a  group,  will  appear  in  the 
relationships  themselves. 

First  collateral  line.  In  the  male  branch,  with  myself  a 
male,  the  children  of  my  brother,  speaking  as  a  Hawaiian, 
are  my  sons  and  daughters,  each  of  them  calling  me  father  ; 
and  the  children  of  the  latter  are  my  grandchildren,  each  of 
them  calling  me  grandfather. 

In  the  female  branch  my  sister's  children  are  my  sons 
and  daughters,  each  of  them  calling  me  father;  and  their 
children  are  my  grandchildren,  each  of  them  calling  me 
grandfather.  With  myself  a  female,  the  relationships  of 
the  persons  above  named  are  the  same  in  both  branches, 
with  corresponding  changes  for  sex. 

The  husbands  and  wives  of  these  several  sons  and  daugh- 
ters are  my  sons-in-law  and  daughters-in-law  ;  the  terms  be- 
ing used  in  common  gender,  and  having  the  terms  for  male 
and  female  added  to  each  respectively. 

Second  collateral  line.  In  the  male  branch  on  the  fa-» 
ther's  side  my  father's   brother   is  my  father,  and  calls  me 

'  Systems  of  Consangiiinily,  loc.  cit.,  p.  445.  "^  lb.,  pp.  525,  573. 


4o6  ANCIENT  SOCIETY. 

his  son  ;  his  children  are  my  brothers  and  sisters,  elder  or 
younger;  their  children  are  my  sons  and  daughters;  and 
the  children  of  the  latter  are  my  grandchildren,  each  of  them 
in  the  preceding  and  succeeding  cases  applying  to  me  the 
proper  correlative.  My  father's  sister  is  my  mother ;  her 
children  are  my  brothers  and  sisters,  elder  or  younger;  their 
children  are  my  sons  and  daughters  ;  and  the  children  of 
the  latter  are  my  grandchildren. 

In  the  same  line  on  the  mother's  side  my  mother's  brother 
is  my  father ;  his  children  are  my  brothers  and  sisters ;  their 
children  are  my  sons  and  daughters ;  and  the  children  of 
the  latter  are  my  grandchildren.  My  mother's  sister  is  my 
mother  ;  her  children  are  my  brothers  and  sisters  ;  their 
children  are  my  sons  and  daughters  ;  and  the  children  of 
the  latter  are  my  grandchildren.  The  relationships  of  the 
persons  named  in  all  the  branches  of  this  and  the  succeed- 
ing lines  are  the  same  with  myself  a  female. 

The  wives  of  these  several  brothers,  own  and  collateral, 
are  my  wives  as  wells  as  theirs.  When  addressing  either 
one  of  them,  I  call  her  my  wife,  employing  the  usual  term  to 
express  that  connection.  The  husbands  of  these  several 
women,  jointly  such  with  myself,  are  my  brothers-in-law. 
With  myself  a  female  the  husbands  of  my  several  sisters, 
own  and  collateral,  are  my  husbands  as  well  as  theirs.  When 
addressing  either  of  them,  I  use  the  common  term  for  hus- 
band. The  wives  of  these  several  husbands,  who  are  jointly 
such  with  myself,  are  my  sisters-in-law. 

Third  collateral  line.  In  the  male  branch  of  this  line  on 
the  father's  side,  my  grandfather's  brother  is  my  grand- 
father; his  children  are  my  father's  and  mother's;  their 
children  are  my  brothers  and  sisters,  elder  or  younger  ;  the 
children  of  the  latter  are  my  sons  and  daughters  ;  and 
their  children  are  my  grandchildren.  My  grandfather's 
sister  is  my  grandmother ;  and  her  children  and  descend- 
ants follow  in  the  same  relationships  as  in  the  last  case. 

In  the  same  line  on  the  mother's  side,  my  grandmo- 
ther's brother  is  my  grandfather  ;  his  sister  is  my  grand- 
mother ;  and  their  respective  children  and  descendants  fall 


THE  CONSANGUINE  FA  MIL  V.  407 

into  the  same  categories  as  those  in  the  first  branch  of  this 
line. 

The  marriage  relationships  are  the  same  in  this  as  in  the 
second  collateral  line,  thus  increasing  largely  the  number 
united  in  the  bonds  of  marriage. 

As  far  as  consanguinei  can  be  traced  in  the  more  remote 
collateral  lines,  the  system,  which  is  all-embracing,  is  the 
same  in  its  classifications.  Thus,  my  great-grandfather  in 
the  fourth  collateral  line  is  my  grandfather;  his  son  is  my 
grandfather  also  ;  the  son  of  the  latter  is  my  father  ;  his 
son  is  my  brother,  elder  or  younger  ;  and  his  son  and  grand- 
son are  my  son  and  grandson. 

It  will  be  observed  that  the  several  collateral  lines  are 
brought  into  and  merged  in  the  lineal  line,  ascending  as 
well  as  descending ;  so  that  the  ancestors  and  descendants 
of  my  collateral  brothers  and  sisters  become  mine  as  well 
as  theirs.  This  is  one  of  the  characteristics  of  the  classifi- 
catory  system.     None  of  the  kindred  are  lost. 

From  the  simplicity  of  the  system  it  may  be  seen  how 
readily  the  relationships  of  consanguinei  are  known  and 
recognized,  and  how  a  knowledge  of  them  is  preserved  from 
generation  to  generation.  A  single  rule  furnishes  an  illus- 
tration :  the  children  of  brothers  are  themselves  brothers 
and  sisters;  the  children  of  the  latter  are  brothers  and  sis- 
ters; and  so  downward  indefinitely.  It  is  the  same  with 
the  children  and  descendants  of  sisters,  and  of  brothers  and 
sisters. 

All  the  members  of  each  grade  are  reduced  to  the  same 
level  in  their  relationships,  without  regard  to  nearness  or 
remoteness  in  numerical  degrees  ;  those  in  each  grade  stand- 
ing to  Eg-o  in  an  identical  relationship.  It  follows,  also,  that 
knowledge  of  the  numerical  degrees  formed  an  integral  part 
of  the  Hawaiian  system,  without  which  the  proper  grade 
of  each  person  could  not  be  known.  The  simple  and  dis- 
tinctive character  of  the  system  will  arrest  attention,  point- 
ing with  such  directness  as  it  does,  to  the  intermarriage 
of  brothers  and  sisters,  own  and  collateral,  in  a  group,  as 
the  source  from  whence  it  sprung. 


408  ANCIENT  SOCIETY. 

Poverty  of  language  or  indifference  to  relationships  exer- 
cised no  influence  whatever  upon  the  formation  of  the  sys- 
tem, as  will  appear  in  the  sequeL 

The  system,  as  here  detailed,  is  found  in  other  Polynesian 
tribes  besides  the  Hawaiians  and  Rotumans,  as  among  the 
Marquesas  Islanders,  and  the  Maoris  of  New  Zealand.  It 
prevails,  also,  among  the  Samoans,  Kusaiens,  and  King's 
Mill  Islanders  of  Micronesia,' and  without  a  doubt  in  every 
inhabited  island  of  the  Pacific,  except  where  it  verges  upon 
the  Turanian. 

From  this  system  the  antecedent  existence  of  the  con- 
sanguine family,  with  the  kind  of  marriage  appertaining 
thereto,  is  plainly  deducible.  Presumptively  it  is  a  natural 
and  real  system,  expressing  the  relationships  which  actually 
existed  when  the  system  was  formed,  as  near  as  the  parent- 
age of  children  could  be  known.  The  usages  with  respect 
to  marriage  which  then  prevailed  may  not  prevail  at  the 
present  time.  To  sustain  the  deduction  it  is  not  necessary 
that  they  should.  Systems  of  consanguinity,  as  before 
stated,  are  found  to  remain  substantially  unchanged  and  in 
full  vigor  long  after  the  marriage  customs  in  which  they 
originated  have  in  part  or  wholly  passed  away.  The  small 
number  of  independent  systems  of  consanguinity  created 
during  the  extended  period  of  human  experience  is  suffi- 
cient proof  of  their  permanence.  They  are  found  not  to 
change  except  in  connection  with  great  epochs  of  progress. 
For  the  purpose  of  explaining  the  origin  of  the  Malayan 
system,  from  the  nature  of  descents,  we  are  at  liberty  to 
assume  the  antecedent  intermarriage  of  own  and  collateral 
brothers  and  sisters  in  a  group;  and  if  it  is  then  found  that 
the  principal  relationships  recognized  are  those  that  would 
actually  exist  under  this  form  of  marriage,  then  the  system 
itself  becomes  evidence  conclusive  of  the  existence  of  such 
marriages.  It  is  plainly  inferable  that  the  system  origi- 
nated in  plural  marriages  of  consanguinei,  including  own 
brothers  and  sisters ;  in  fact  commenced  with  the  inter- 
marriage of  the  latter,  and  gradually  enfolded  the  collateral 

'  Systems  of  Consanguinity,  etc.,  1.  c,  Table  iii,  pp.  542,  573 


THE  CONSANGUINE  FAMILY.  409 

brothers  and  sisters  as  the  range  of  the  conjugal  system 
widened.  In  course  of  time  the  evils  of  the  first  form  of 
marriage  came  to  be  perceived,  leading,  if  not  to  its  direct 
abolition,  to  a  preference  for  wives  beyond  this  degree. 
Among  the  Australians  it  was  permanently  abolished  by 
the  organization  into  classes,  and  more  widely  among  the 
Turanian  tribes  by  the  organization  into  gentes.  It  is  im- 
possible to  explain  the  system  as  a  natural  growth  upon 
any  other  hypothesis  than  the  one  named,  since  this  form 
of  marriage  alone  can  furnish  a  key  to  its  interpretation. 
In  the  consanguine  family,  thus  constituted,  the  husbands 
lived  in  polygyny,  and  the  wives  in  polyandry,  which  are 
seen  to  be  as  ancient  as  human  society.  Such  a  family  was 
neither  unnatural  nor  remarkable.  It  would  be  difficult  to 
show  any  other  possible  beginning  of  the  family  in  the 
primitive  period.  Its  long  continuance  in  a  partial  form 
among  the  tribes  of  mankind  is  the  greater  cause  for  sur- 
prise ;  for  all  traces  of  it  had  not  disappeared  among  the 
Hawaiians  at  the  epoch  of  their  discovery. 

The  explanation  of  the  origin  of  the  Malayan  system 
given  in  this  chapter,  and  of  the  Turanian  and  Ganowanian 
given  in  the  next,  have  been  questioned  and  denied  by  Mr. 
John  F.  McLennan,  author  of  "  Primitive  Marriage."  I 
see  no  occasion,  however,  to  modify  the  views  herein  pre- 
sented, which  are  the  same  substantially  as  those  given  in 
"  Systems  of  Consanguinity,"  etc.  But  I  ask  the  attention 
of  the  reader  to  the  interpretation  here  repeated,  and  to  a 
note  at  the  end  of  Chapter  VI,  in  which  Mr.  McLennan's 
objections  are  considered. 

If  the  recognized  relationships  in  the  Malayan  system 
are  now  tested  by  this  form  of  marriage,  it  will  be  found 
that  they  rest  upon  the  intermarriage  of  own  and  collateral 
brothers  and  sisters  in  a  group. 

It  should  be  remembered  that  the  relationships  which  grow 
out  of  the  family  organization  are  of  two  kinds  :  those  of 
blood  determined  by  descents,  and  those  of  affinity  deter- 
mined by  marriage.  Since  in  the  consanguine  family  there 
are  two  distinct  groups  of  persons,  one  of  fathers  and  one 


410  ANCIEXT  SOCIETY. 

of  mothers,  the  affiliation  of  the  children  to  both  groups 
would  be  so  strong  that  the  distinction  between  relation- 
ships by  blood  and  by  affinity  would  not  be  recognized  in 
the  system  in  every  case. 

I.  All  the  children  of  my  several  brothers,  myself  a 
male,  are  my  sons  and  daughters. 

Reason  :  Speaking  as  a  Hawaiian,  all  the  wives  of  my 
several  brothers  are  my  wives  as  well  as  theirs.  As  it  would 
be  impossible  for  me  to  distinguish  my  own  children  from 
those  of  my  brothers,  if  I  call  any  one  my  child,  I  must 
call  them  all  my  children.  One  is  as  likely  to  be  mine  as 
another. 

II.  All  the  grandchildren  of  my  several  brothers  are  my 
grandchildren. 

Reason  :   They  are  the  children  of  my  sons  and  daughters. 

III.  With  myself  a  female  the  foregoing  relationships 
are  the  same. 

This  is  purely  a  question  of  relationship  by  marriage. 
My  several  brothers  being  my  husbands,  their  children  by 
other  wives  would  be  my  step-children,  which  relationship 
being  unrecognized,  they  naturally  fall  into  the  category 
of  my  sons  and  daughters.  Otherwise  they  would  pass 
v/ithout  the  system.  Among  ourselves  a  step-mother  is 
called  mother,  and  a  step-son  a  son. 

IV.  All  the  children  of  my  several  sisters,  own  and  col- 
lateral, myself  a  male,  are  my  sons  and  daughters. 

Reason  :  All  my  sisters  are  my  wives,  as  well  as  the  wives 
of  my  several  brothers. 

V.  All  the  grandchildren  of  my  several  sisters  are  my 
grandchildren. 

Reason  :  They  are  the  children  of  my  sons  and  daughters. 

VI.  All  the  children  of  my  several  sisters,  myself  a  female, 
are  my  sons  and  daughters. 

Reason  :  The  husbands  of  my  sisters  are  my  husbands 
as  well  as  theirs.  This  difference,  however,  exists :  I  can 
distinguish  my  own  children  from  those  of  my  sisters,  to 
the  latter  of  whom  I  am  a  step-mother.  But  since  this 
relationship  is  not  discriminated,  they  fall  into  the  category 


THE  CONSANGUINE  FAMILY.  4II 

of  my  sons  and  daughters.     Otherwise  they  would  fall  with- 
out the  system. 

VII.  All  the  children  of  several  own  brothers  are  broth- 
ers and  sisters  to  each  other. 

Reason  :  These  brothers  are  the  husbands  of  all  the 
mothers  of  these  children.  The  children  can  distinguish 
their  own  mothers,  but  not  their  fathers,  wherefore,  as  to  the 
former,  a  part  are  own  brothers  and  sisters,  and  step-broth- 
ers and  step-sisters  to  the  remainder;  but  as  to  the  latter, 
they  are  probable  brothers  and  sisters.  For  these  reasons 
they  naturally  fall  into  this  category. 

VIII.  The  children  of  these  brothers  and  sisters  are  also 
brothers  and  sisters  to  each  other;  the  children  of  the  lat- 
ter are  brothers  and  sisters  again,  and  this  relationship  con- 
tinues downward  among  their  descendants  indefinitely.  It 
is  precisely  the  same  with  the  children  and  descendants  of 
several  own  sisters,  and  of  several  brothers  and  sisters.  An 
infinite  series  is  thus  created,  which  is  a  fundamental  part 
of  the  system.  To  account  for  this  series  it  must  be  fur- 
ther assumed  that  the  marriage  relation  extended  wherever 
the  relationship  of  brother  and  sister  was  recognized  to 
exist;  each  brother  having  as  many  wives  as  he  had  sisters, 
own  or  collateral,  and  each  sister  having  as  many  husbands 
as  she  had  brothers,  own  or  collateral.  Marriage  and  the 
family  seem  to  form  in  the  grade  or  category,  and  to  be 
coextensive  with  it.  Such  apparently  was  the  beginning  of 
that  stupendous  conjugal  system  which  has  before  been  a 
number  of  times  adverted  to. 

IX.  All  the  brothers  of  my  father  are  my  fathers  ;  and 
all  the  sisters  of  my  mother  are  my  mothers. 

Reasons,  as  in  I,  III,  and  VI. 

X.  All  the  brothers  of  my  mother  are  my  fathers. 
Reason  :  They  are  my  mother's  husbands. 

XI.  All  the  sisters  of  my  mother  are  my  mothers. 
Reasons,  as  in  VI. 

XII.  All  the  children  of  my  collateral  brothers  and  sis- 
ters are,  without  distinction,  my  sons  and  daughters. 

Reasons,  as  in  I,  III,  IV,  VI. 


412 


ANCIENT  SOCIETY. 


XIII.  All  the  children  of  the  latter  are  my  grandchildren. 
Reasons,  as  in  II. 

XIV.  All  the  brothers  and  sisters  of  my  grandfather  and 
grandmother,  on  the  father's  side  and  on  the  mother's  side, 
are  my  grandfathers  and  grandmothers. 

Reason:  They  are  the  fathers  and  mothers  of  my  father 
and  mother. 

Every  relationship  recognized  under  the  system  is  thus 
explained  from  the  nature  of  the  consanguine  family, 
founded  upon  the  intermarriage  of  brothers  and  sisters, 
own  and  collateral,  in  a  group.  Relationships  on  the  father's 
side  are  followed  as  near  as  the  parentage  of  children  could 
be  known,  probable  fathers  being  treated  as  actual  fathers. 
Relationships  on  the  mother's  side  are  determined  by  the 
principle  of  affinity,  step-children  being  regarded  as  actual 
children. 

Turning  next  to  the  marriage  relationships,  confirmatory 
results  are  obtained,  as  the  following  table  will  show : 


TONGAN. 

Hawaiian. 

My  Brother's   Wife,           Male    speaking, 

Unoho, 

My  Wife. 

Waheena,  My  Wife. 

"     Wife's  Sister, 

Unoho, 

" 

Waheena,    "    Wife. 

"     Husband's  Brother,    Female       " 

Unoho, 

"    Husband. 

Kane,           "   Husband. 

"     Father's     Brother's  1  n^-  ,              ,, 
Son's  Wife,              \  ^^'^ 

Unoho, 

"   Wife. 

Waheena,    "   Wife. 

"     Mother's      Sister's    (      „                „ 
Son's  Wife,              1 

Unoho, 

"       " 

Waheena,    "       " 

"     Father's     Brother's  \  „        . 
Daughter's  Husb.  }  ^"^^^'^ 

Unoho, 

"    Husband. 

Kaikoeka,   "    Bro. -in-law. 

"     Mother's       Sister's  (     ,,               „ 
Daughter's  Husb.  f 

Unoho, 

., 

Kaikoeka,    "               " 

Wherever  the  relationship  of  wife  is  found  in  the  collat- 
eral line,  that  of  husband  must  be  recognized  in  the  lineal, 
and  conversely.'  When  this  system  of  consanguinity  and 
affinity  first  came  into  use  the  relationships,  which  are  still 
preserved,  could  have  been  none  other  than  those  which 
actually  existed,  whatever  may  have  afterwards  occurred  in 
marriage  usages. 

From  the  evidence  embodied   in    this   system    of  consan- 


'  Among  the  Kafirs  of  South  Africa,  the  wife  of  my  father's  brother's  son,  of 
my  father's  sister's  son,  of  my  mother's  brother's  son,  and  of  my  mother's  sister's 
son,  are  all  alike  my  vvive^,  as  well  as  theirs,  as  appears  by  their  system  of  con- 
sanguinity. 


THE  CONSA  NG  VINE  FA  MIL  Y.  4 1 3 

guinity  the  deduction  is  made  that  the  consanguine  family, 
as  defined,  existed  among  the  ancestors  of  the  Polynesian 
tribes  when  the  system  was  formed.  Such  a  form  of  the 
family  is  necessary  to  render  an  interpretation  of  the  system 
possible.  Moreover,  it  furnishes  an  interpretation  of  every 
relationship  with  reasonable  exactness. 

The  following  observation  of  Mr.  Oscar  Peschel  is  de- 
serving of  attention:  "That  at  any  time  and  in  an}^  place 
the  children  of  the  same  mother  have  propagated  themselves 
sexually,  for  any  long  period,  has  been  rendered  especially 
incredible,  since  it  has  been  established  that  even  in  the  case 
of  organisms  devoid  of  blood,  such  as  the  plants,  reciprocal 
fertilization  of  the  descendants  of  the  same  parents  is  to  a 
great  extent  impossible."'  It  must  be  remembered  that  the 
consanguine  group  united  in  the  marriage  relation  was  not 
restricted  to  own  brothers  and  sisters;  but  it  included  col- 
lateral brothers  and  sisters  as  well.  The  larger  the  group 
recognizing  the  marriage  relation,  the  less  the  evil  of  close 
interbreeding. 

From  general  considerations  the  ancient  existence  of  such 
a  family  was  probable.  The  natural  and  necessary  relations 
of  the  consanguine  family  to  the  punaluan,  of  the  punaluan 
to  the  syndyasmian,  and  of  the  syndyasmian  to  the  mono- 
gamian,  each  presupposing  its  predecessor,  lead  directly  to 
this  conclusion.  They  stand  to  each  other  in  a  logical  se- 
quence, and  together  stretch  across  several  ethnical  periods 
from  savagery  to  civilization. 

In  like  manner  the  three  great  systems  of  consanguinity, 
which  are  connected  with  the  three  radical  forms  of  the 
family,  stand  to  each  other  in  a  similarly  connected  series, 
running  parallel  with  the  former,  and  indicating  not  less 
plainly  a  similar  line  of  human  progress  from  savagery  to 
civilization.  There  are  reasons  for  concluding  that  the  re- 
mote ancestors  of  the  Aryan,  Semitic,  and  Uralian  families 
possessed  a  system  identical  with  the  Malayan  when  in  the 
savage  state,  which  was  finally  modified  into  the  Turanian 
after  the  establishment  of  the  gentile  organization,  and  then 

'  Races  of  Man,  Appleton's  ed.  1S76,  p.  232. 


414  ANCIENT  SOCIETY. 

overthrown  when  the  monogamian  family  appeared,  intro- 
ducing the  Aryan  system  of  consanguinity. 

Notwithstanding  the  high  character  of  the  evidence 
given,  there  is  still  other  evidence  of  the  ancient  existence 
of  the  consanguine  family  among  the  Hawaiians  which 
should  not  be  overlooked. 

Its  antecedent  existence  is  rendered  probable  by  the  con- 
dition of  society  in  the  Sandwich  Islands  when  it  first 
became  thoroughly  known.  At  the  time  the  American 
missions  were  established  upon  these  Islands  (1820),  a  state 
of  society  was  found  which  appalled  the  missionaries.  The 
relations  of  the  sexes  and  their  marriage  customs  excited 
their  chief  astonishment.  They  were  suddenly  introduced 
to  a  phase  of  ancient  society  where  the  monogamian  family 
was  unknown,  where  the  syndyasmian  family  was  unknown  ; 
but  in  the  place  of  these,  and  without  understanding  the 
organism,  they  found  the  punaluan  family,  with  own  broth- 
/  ers  and  sisters  not  entirely  excluded,  in  which  the  males 
were  living  in  polygyny,  and  the  females  in  polyandry. 
It  seemed  to  them  that  they  had  discovered  the  lowest  level 
of  human  degradation,  not  to  say  of  depravity.  But  the 
innocent  Hawaiians,  who  had  not  been  able  to  advance 
themselves  out  of  savagery,  were  living,  no  doubt  respect- 
ably and  modestly  for  savages,  under  customs  and  usages 
which  to  them  had  the  force  of  laws.  It  is  probable  that 
they  were  living  as  virtuously  in  their  faithful  observance, 
as  these  excellent  missionaries  were  in  the  performance  of 
their  own.  The  shock  the  latter  experienced  from  their  dis- 
coveries expresses  the  profoundness  of  the  expanse  which 
separates  civilized  from  savage  man.  The  high  moral  sense 
and  refined  sensibilities,  which  had  been  a  growth  of  the 
ages,  were  brought  face  to  face  with  the  feeble  moral  sense 
and  the  coarse  sensibilities  of  a  savage  man  of  all  these 
periods  ago.  As  a  contrast  it  was  total  and  complete.  The 
Rev.  Hiram  Bingham,  one  of  these  veteran  missionaries, 
has  given  us  an  excellent  history  of  the  Sandwich  Islands, 
founded  upon  original  investigations,  in  which  he  pictures 
the   people  as  practicing  the  sum  of  human  abominations. 


THE  CONSA  NG  UINE  FA  MIL  V.  4 1 5 

"Polygamy,  implying  plurality  of  husbands  and  wives," 
he  observes,  "  fornication,  adultery,  incest,  infant  murder, 
desertion  of  husband  and  wives,  parents  and  children ; 
sorcery,  covetousness,  and  oppression  extensively  prevailed, 
and  seem  hardly  to  have  been  forbidden  by  their  religion."  ' 
Punaluan  marriage  and  the  punaluan  family  dispose  of  the 
principal  charges  in  this  grave  indictment,  and  leave  the 
Hawaiians  a  chance  at  a  moral  character.  The  existence  of 
morality,  even  among  savages,  must  be  recognized,  although 
low  in  type;  for  there  never  could  have  been  a  time  in 
human  experience  when  the  principle  of  morality  did  not 
exist.  Wakea,  the  eponymous  ancestor  of  the  Havv'aiians, 
according  to  Mr.  Bingham,  is  said  to  have  married  his  eld- 
est daughter.  In  the  time  of  these  missionaries  brothers 
and  sisters  married  without  reproach.  "  The  union  of 
brother  and  sister  in  the  highest  ranks,"  he  further  remarks, 
"became  fashionable,  and  continued  until  the  revealed  will 
of  God  was  made  known  to  them."  ^  It  is  not  singular  that 
the  intermarriage  of  brothers  and  sisters  should  have  sur- 
vived from  the  consanguine  family  into  the  punaluan  in 
some  cases,  in  the  Sandwich  Islands,  because  the  people  had 
not  attained  to  the  gentile  organization,  and  because  the 
punaluan  family  was  a  growth  out  of  the  consanguine  not 
yet  entirely  consummated.  Although  the  family  was  sub- 
stantially punaluan,  the  system  of  consanguinity  remained 
unchanged,  as  it  came  in  with  the  consanguine  family,  Avith 
the  exception  of  certain  marriage  relationships. 

It  is  not  probable  that  the  actual  family,  among  the 
Hawaiians,  was  as  large  as  the  group  united  in  the  mar- 
riage relation.  Necessity  would  compel  its  subdivision  into 
smaller  groups  for  the  procurement  of  subsistence,  and  for 
mutual  protection ;  but  each  smaller  family  would  be  a 
miniature  of  the  group.  It  is  not  improbable  that  individ- 
uals passed  at  pleasure  from  one  of  these  subdivisions  into 
another  in  the  punaluan  as  well  as  consanguine  family, 
giving  rise  to  that  apparent  desertion  by  husbands  and 
wives  of  each  other,  and  by  parents  of  their  children,  mcn- 

*  Bingham's  Sandiu'ch  IsL^tids,  Hartford  ed.,  1847,  p.  2i.  "  11/.,  p.  23. 


4l6  ANCIENT  SOCIETY. 

tioned  by  Mr.  Bingham.  Communism  in  living  must,  of 
necessity,  have  prevailed  both  in  the  consanguine  and  in 
the  punaluan  family,  because  it  was  a  requirement  of  their 
condition.  It  still  prevails  generally  among  savage  and 
barbarous  tribes. 

A  brief  reference  should  be  made  to  the  "  Nine  Grades 
of  Relations  of  the  Chinese."  An  ancient  Chinese  author 
remarks  as  follows  :  "  All  men  born  into  the  world  have 
nine  ranks  of  relations.  My  own  generation  is  one  grade, 
my  father's  is  one,  that  of  my  grandfather's  is  one,  that  of 
my  grandfather's  father  is  one,  and  that  of  my  grandfather's 
grandfather  is  one  ;  thus,  above  me  are  four  grades  :  My 
son's  generation  is  one,  that  of  my  grandson's  is  one,  that 
of  my  grandson's  son  is  one,  and  that  of  my  grandson's 
grandson  is  one ;  thus,  below  me  are  four  grades  ;  includ- 
ing myself  in  the  estimate,  there  are,  in  all  nine  grades. 
These  are  brethren,  and  although  each  grade  belongs  to  a 
different  house  or  family,  yet  they  are  all  my  relations,  and 
these  are  the  nine  grades  of  relations." 

"  The  degrees  of  kindred  in  a  family  are  like  the  stream- 
lets of  a  fountain,  or  the  branches  of  a  tree  ;  although  the 
streams  differ  in  being  more  or  less  remote,  and  the  branches 
in  being  more  or  less  near,  yet  there  is  but  one  trunk  and 
one  fountain  head."  ' 

The  Hawaiian  system  of  consanguinity  realizes  the  nine 
grades  of  relations  (conceiving  them  reduced  to  five  by 
striking  off  the  two  upper  and  the  two  lower  members) 
more  perfectly  than  that  of  the  Chinese  at  the  present  time." 
While  the  latter  has  changed  through  the  introduction  of 
Turanian  elements,  and  still  more  through  special  additions 
to  distinguish  the  several  collateral  lines,  the  former  has 
held,  pure  and  simple,  to  the  primary  grades  which  pre- 
sumptively were  all  the  Chinese  possessed  originally.  It  is 
evident  that  consanguinei,  in  the  Chinese  as  in  the  Hawai- 
ian, are  generalized  into  categories  by  generations  ;  all  col- 
laterals of  the  same  grade  being  brothers  and  sisters  to  each 

*  Systems  of  ConsangMtnity ,  etc.,  p.  415. 

'  Il>.,  p.  432.  where  the  Chinese  system  is  presented  in  full. 


THE  CONSA  NG  VINE  FA  MIL  V.  4 1 7 

Other.  Moreover,  marriage  and  the  family  are  conceived  as 
forming  within  the  grade,  and  confined,  so  far  as  husbands 
and  wives  are  concerned,  within  its  limits.  As  explained  by 
the  Hawaiian  categories  it  is  perfectly  intelligible.  At  the 
same  time  it  indicates  an  anterior  condition  among  the  re- 
mote ancestors  of  the  Chinese,  of  which  this  fragment  pre- 
serves a  knowledge,  precisely  analogous  to  that  reflected  by 
the  Hawaiian.  In  other  words,  it  indicated  the  presence 
of  the  punaluan  family  when  these  grades  were  formed, 
of  which  the  consanguine  was  a  necessary  predecessor. 

In  the  "Timasus"  of  Plato  there  is  a  suggestive  recogni- 
tion of  the  same  five  primary  grades  of  relations.  All  con- 
sanguinei  in  the  Ideal  Republic  were  to  fall  into  five  cate- 
gories, in  which  the  women  were  to  be  in  common  as  wives, 
and  the  children  in  common  as  to  parents.  "  But  how 
about  the  procreation  of  children  ?  "  Socrates  says  to  Timseus. 
"  This,  perhaps,  you  easily  remember,  on  account  of  the  nov- 
elty of  the  proposal ;  for  we  ordered  that  marriage  unions 
and  children  should  be  in  common  to  all  persons  whatsoever, 
special  care  being  taken  also  that  no  one  should  be  able  to 
distinguish  his  own  children  individually,  but  all  consider  all 
their  kindred ;  regarding  those  of  an  equal  age,  and  in  the 
prime  of  life,  as  their  brothers  and  sisters,  those  prior  to 
them,  and  yet  further  back  as  their  parents  and  grandsires, 
and  those  below  them,  as  their  children  and  grandchildren."  * 
Plato  undoubtedly  was  familiar  with  Hellenic  and  Pelasgian 
traditions  not  known  to  us,  which  reached  far  back  into 
the  period  of  barbarism,  and  revealed  traces  of  a  still  earlier 
condition  of  the  Grecian  tribes.  His  ideal  family  may  have 
been  derived  from  these  delineations,  a  supposition  far  more 
probable  than  that  it  was  a  philosophical  deduction.  It 
will  be  noticed  that  his  five  grades  of  relations  are  precisely 
the  same  as  the  Hawaiian  ;  that  the  family  was  to  form  in 
each  grade  where  the  relationship  was  that  of  brothers  and 
sisters  ;  and  that  husbands  and  wives  were  to  be  in  common 
in  the  group. 

Finally,  it  will  be  perceived  that  the  state  of  society  indi- 

'  Tlmnus,  c.  ii,  Davis's  trans. 
27 


4 1 8  ANCIENT  SO  CIE  T  V. 

cated  by  the  consanguine  family  points  with  logical  direct- 
ness to  an  anterior  condition  of  promiscuous  intercourse. 
There  seems  to  be  no  escape  from  this  conclusion,  although 
questioned  by  so  eminent  a  writer  as  Mr.  Darwin.'  It  is 
not  probable  that  promiscuity  in  the  primitive  period  was 
long  continued  even  in  the  horde ;  because  the  latter  would 
break  up  into  smaller  groups  for  subsistence,  and  fall  into 
consanguine  families.  The  most  that  can  safely  be  claimed 
upon  this  difficult  question  is,  that  the  consanguine  family 
was  the  first  organized  form  of  society,  and  that  it  was 
necessarily  an  improvement  upon  the  previous  unorganized 
state,  whatever  that  state  may  have  been.  It  found  man- 
kind at  the  bottom  of  the  scale,  from  which,  as  a  starting 
point,  and  the  lowest  known,  we  may  take  up  the  history 
of  human  progress,  and  trace  it  through  the  growth  of  do- 
mestic institutions,  inventions,  and  discoveries,  from  sav- 
agery to  civilization.  By  no  chain  of  events  can  it  be 
shown  more  conspicuously  than  in  the  growth  of  the  idea 
of  the  family  through  successive  forms.  With  the  exist- 
ence of  the  consanguine  family  established,  of  which  the 
proofs  adduced  seem  to  be  sufficient,  the  remaining  fami- 
lies are  easily  demonstrated. 

'  Descent  of  Man,  ii,  360. 


THE  CONSANGUINE  FAMILY. 


419 


^•s. 


■5  E  rt  S  "« 

E^  EJi  E 


^-  -  -    o 


nana 

V 

■«  E15  6 

0 

Eiii  E<ii 

ti 

ale 
ild, 

ale 
ma' 

s^ 

E-g;  -  -  e^ 

E-y 

0.2 

71 

r^'  —  « 


:«   0,t«   0:rt    O 


rt  rt  rt  rt  rt 


5  Jii  Jtl  Jii^  B 


"a  B  V 
E^'S 


4J  rt 
Jl 


u  :i_i;  rt 
rt  S  n  c 
E  lii  E  vil  "^ 
•a  - 


Ji-   -   -    o 


•  -  rt 
"5  W) 


-^  o  ^  rt  H  In  rt  X 


13 

a 

-v'-S 

■•?  a 
c  rt 
o  ^- 


Sk 


o_rt 


g  J!  «  jj  Trt  :rt  :n  = 


1  :rt  )rt  )rt 

I  S  c  C  : 

!J'|a-  =  =  :  > 

!:rt^    2 


)3'»rt 


-o  o. 
c  d> 

):5   O 


0) 


-  -      o  o 


<£>£:    E  S 


■£-2 

c  c 
a  rt 
b£  bo 


u 


1> » 


5  S-SS 

iS  bJJ^rt   g 


*      S  §  S  2  2 

^  c  c  rt  -^ 
lj*^rt2^^'*  O' 
■e   i« -a   Uj  taO  W)      ^ 


«      It-  =  2 

3       «j  o  rt 

(rt         Wl  c    c 
.2  ^V   C   2   «   « 

•r«    U    OJ    O    rt    tV  ^- 

t.  ^  ^  H  "i"^  Ml  be 

J-         Jl  ."'MMlccrt, 

ti-    ii-     cc^^rtrtoj. 
2'     tn"     oortrtt->-f 

_S     -a      SS-o-aMMM 


—    S        -^  T)  "O  i!,         ^ 


M 


u    u    ^    ^  „     _    _ 

be  bciiS  E  S  -a  be  be  bn     be 


.  J=  ,  . 


Ul  be  be  a 

C   C    3    3    rt 


nvo  t^oo  o\  0 


)  -"J-  irivo   t^co   ty.  o 


I  -^  irjvo    h>co 


rOCOcncOfOfOr^fOC^ 


420 


ANCIENT  SOCIETY. 


_u 

J>                     J) 

Ji                    — 

J> 

0 

u 

"3                    o'rt 

_u 

"rt                     u" 

"rt 

U'rt 

u 

"rt 

S                   ■«  E 

"rt 

a           •«  E 

rt 

E 

n  S 

rt 

E  „ 

^  E 

E 

^      „          E^ 

E 

lii 

OJ  "rt 

E 

.1)  ,3s 

>-    rt    4> 

s 

2 
J3 

^  "n  ,    u  -0" 
«  E  "    "rt^ 

u  "rt  ,     Otj 
n  E-     rt-'s 

rt   S 

E.«i 

^  "S  ii  1  -o 

rt  E  rt  S.- 

II 

"rt 

c 

T3: 
2 

.    E^      6-S, 
_2\  .  ,  1 

: 

.    £>^      E-g- 
"  3            ■§" 

:: 

= 

5-  -S-  0 

= 

'tj. 

fee 

h  "    0 "    •;:  : 

0  •  -  ::  ;  :    rt 

u-      0 

■S  :    c  •■5 

'^ "  ■"  "    H 

j= "  "  "    b 

rt      I.     .i " 

£  j=;               !- 

2       >-x 

0                  M 

0                  bu 

0.       J2          3 

J2   0                   M 

0,     .0 

in       J3   0 

S" 

>-•  • 

J     .         .          .,- 

J     .    "    .     '     •,- 

>-« 

•         •         ■  w. 

J  .    . 

.^  c 

J^  rt 

c 

c                     c 

a                     c 

c 

c 

d 

SE 

0;rt 

0                     .:«   0 

0                     .:rt   0 

z^ 

0 

:rt   2 

:ci 

0 

j;£ 

J3       >y>y       V.J3 

J3       )7  )-       (J:  X 

J3 

-7       >7  v«  J3 

X 

O    3 

l« 

*£-"£:       rt 

J 

:rt  J   0:rt   M 

; 

; 

■  l"?  ,_  ,„  "c  -3 

C  bo  fcji  0  0 

:rt    0  ,i  ,J.  -"7  -'t 

3         3   rt 

*"   flj  qj  OJ  u   ^^ 

:; 

-   "d      'Eo 

"     0  :rt  ,,!.  - 

"3       „   ^ 

^ 

:rt 

.'^  V  ^«;'  V  :<i 

^'   ^'   ^'   ^'   :rt 

'V  -7  .'•  .f    WJ  tJO 

'^  ^'   -.'   ^'   ^'  :rt 

j:  ■-  i^i  - 

to    '■?  V 

s 

iJJi^ii  E 

vvvv  S 

0  '0  'y:  "^    u:    ul 

:rtl;^3.3;    E 

■S-5'5 

^      «Ji 

JJ 

u        .        .       u 

0         .         .        aJ 

'Z 

f 

_u 

rt  4j 

"rt                     iJ  "rt 

OJ 

"rt                       li~ 

OJ 

"rt 

v'a 

_u 

"rt                  ^, 

!■« 

E    .  &    .     ~  E 

" 

S    .  >    .     "HE 

"r: 

d 

U      . 

.      S  E 

rt 

E  ,.             ^ 

, 

c 
a 

Pi 

>iiS 

,u        rt            c,u 

E 

J     i2  ^      E^ 

C 

«J  I.   to 
u'rt   «  C 

1       «       "S'^ 

E 

^iJ         v.    M 
^^    Ci    V    ^    ^ 

1 

2 
IS 

■a; 
c 
2 
to 

^_ 

•?1  E  S3 

: 

T3    M-Tf'-r    C 

: 

= 

JE^E^I^ 

. 

E132  g 

.-T   « 

.S  rt 

•     .:.  S 
„fe-S2 

H 

iIIIm 

.•S  3.-^  c   rt 

-C      rt   J-       -       V- 

r  2  -fs- 

X)u                to 

S"    2 
D.     ,a 

"S  t^  2a 

z 

^ 

- 

- 

-   =   -   - 

rt 

rt 

rt        •        •       rt 

rt 

rt 

rt 

n! 

c 

C 

c                       c 

c 

3 

c 

K 

-^  ■= 

rt       _,"u 

rt 
c 

u              C         rt   ^ 

rt 
c 

x: 

.  rt    . 
■?                 rt  rt 

'=     "?gl 

rt 
d 

^'   rt 

'?  j3   3   rt 

rt 

B 

D.  5 

'.<i  :'rt 

-5,  rt        u      :rt :? 

:"rt 

:rt  rt        CJ       :rt  'S? 

.•rt 

ici 

rt   u          ■        -'  -;'. 
c  .3  rt           Ji  3^ 

'  rt"jj  rt  Srrt=j 

"rt 

"Ji     s 

•^:3 

s:S 

Jj    C        J3        /i    ^ 

-i! 

&  =    -c    :5  S 

^ 

s 

7  -7  ^             V  V 

.-J,  :rt    7              X  -3 

^i  Prt  :rt  :"rt  :rt  '^ 

0  «i  iJ  "    1,- 

-a 

>5-'    3 

llSrrtg 

>rt        til  .i 

■£'_^'T 

3 

c 

0,- 

o 

-^  Trt      :g      'rt 
:«  ^  )rt   *  irt   ■? 
^  1"  ?  u  =  Ta  . 

^.     C  ^1     Co 

' 

:"c4       :^       )rt 
^  )rt  S  rt  = 

.    5;  =r  u  ?  i  . 

: 

- 

:3   S  :"rt   2    rt  :ni  :« 
>a   a   rt.ij?   S    S 
.-A  .-J,  (3   rt  "u   3  a 

: 

3    J    o-^ 

'^ 

o 

s 

•:rt  >=  ':«  .3   S 

;:^'^;:ix  a 

=5'5'rrtrrt-«rrtrrt':rt;s':rt':rt   2 

E    CX^    S^^.J^-i!_i:^          E 

1    m 

•rt'irt'o  :3 

.          .          .          . 

• 

.    .    .    . 

• 

•     •     • 

•           • 

. 

. 

. 

. 

•           •        1^ 

.     .     . 

.           . 

.i   •    • 

• 

.     .     . 

•5. 

•           • 

9: 

-    Q  -  >.  Y  »  « 

u     •3'" 

,           , 

■^  -     f^ 

0      .« 

c 
o 

"Si 

i 

.     S"    • «= 

•?  ■   "5. 

. 

e 

■^ 

■§•         R 

■^        •       u       S 

d 

0 

bo            « I 

oi 

, "« 

^ 

, 

•^                     5^ 

1    -i 

• 

o 

c 

"s " 

Im 

!>■"  ^  y  s  §  rt  °i 

■^■^  .    -5; 

rt  rt           2  - 
bo  bo         .  "^ 

•0 

C 

a 
3 

a 

U               c 

^             — 

u 
j2 

bt 
3 
rt 
•a 
-a 

rt 

a 

j: 

z,                rt 

C 

0 

c 
rt 

5 

5?           ^ 

3                 rt 
1               1       J3 
rt               -^      -2 

u:     ,,     lA     M 

tC       iS    u-i.    d    3 

d 

0 

-^^  ID     tJO* 

g  3  3  Jj        rt  rt   0 

^  °-u_c  >    w  tow 

tO.i/i         tao'     rt         rt 
rt   g-     rt         "'     tl 

■a  S      -a       MM 

3g: 

Ul    bo  tOM 

■=  S  rt  S 

?s    ■$^^?.4 

M  bJC 

fli  '"^ 

|rt.  ggiS2  2^i:„  .-w'mI'Sss'S-s^  —  = - 

«  ^-  * 

S    S    5    S 

*u 

V 

J^ 

"u. 

-^ 

»       ,C    ^       s.       ..       •«       %. 

V            ^     ..         %.         V         u         <. 

u  <■    «    «    V    V    V 

.2' 

*         W    -       w       A       ^        <- 

0 

' 

"     w  -    -    -   *   - 

" 

" 

^ 

" 

"  -S "  '  " 

»..•.'. 

i 

'w 

>i3 

•2 

>■- 

<5 

o\  0 

M  M  m  ■*  li^vo  t>^oo 

OS  0   w    «    n^  -^  lOVO 

t^oo  o\  0  H  «  m  ■<i'  lovD  t^oo  o\  0  M 

« 

fo  ■<«•  mvo  r^ 

^ScgJS 

cn■*■*■^'*■»^'*'^■«^■^■^tOl/l^nlOmlOl0^nlO  mvO  ^o\ovovO^^OvO^O^O   t^rNC^t^t^t«*t>.t^ 

THE  CONSANGUINE  FAMILY. 


421 


c  a  p  i      JJ 

III  II 


r1 

F 

m 

H 

„^ 

jU 

B 

lil 

^ 

a. 

u 

rt 

0> 

CS-T3 

fi 

rt 

H 

r! 

fc::= 

H 

s 

g 

- 

. 

- 

^- 

V 

V 

<) 

B 

R 

rt 

b: 

a 

H 

R 

-H 

^3 

s 

a 

t; 

•u 

: 

: 

: 

T3 

T) 

n 

c 

0 

15 

' 

" 

- 

rt 

fTr, 

rt 

o  2 
-2« 


>r     >-r<- jsv 


•—    •  >v  v_  j:;  t„  x  U 


_c  -       .  **-  -G  t^  - 


'o'o  ■ 


|S    •_j. 


E^  =  ^ 


7  E<ii  e<ii-g.  J 


^    «    C  —    IJ  -S 

55     -,       C  w  S 


*-  -    ^    U   —  Jui  . 


c  rt 

u  ri 

'.   c 

^  c 

!m 

rt 

J= 

^^ 

:« 

:B  >rt 

# 

^    ? 

.^:rtj? 


-7   P-9- 

=5  ^  •? ' 


ri .  -  ,  '^    • 

p.-    -    =    >3  -    ' 


rt  .A  ^'  :'c:  '^  Ki  =^ 


:S  :«  ■?  ':«  :«  :3 


w> 


S- 


C    C    c 

n  n  c 
he  M  I 

rt        c 
&       t 


"mi  ^  -  5  s 

-  -  d  i  rt  rt 

»       c  c  « 
rt  rt  u  ; 

i       M  M  Ml 


C  3 
.,        ^   C    ni 


.!> 


MJ 


o;    o  =S  !«  o 


J  — •— _»i  M  trijfi       w 
■50-    onrto'n 


Sen! 

_      _>^-a 
^c  =  ,. 

X  -o  -^  T3     I 
=   5   «, 

«  2  u- 

bjO  tx  to 


■  ii  p  « 


M 


ty  o 

•      •?  "a 

M  a 

u  c  2  g 

M  c  c  cs 

C   3    «    rt   U 
Q    rt    u    I-    v^ 

S-a  wi  t»  M) 


bil" 


•£■£" 

o  o 


«    <,      (U  - 


nvc  r^oo  o^  o 


nvo  t~.oo  o>  ( 


nvo  t^oo  o\  o 


oocooooooocooooa  a^a\c^o^o^a^o\o^avo^o  o  o  o  o  o  o  o  o  o 


1  -"^  lo^o  r^oo  o>  o 


422 


A  NCI  EN  T  SOCIE  T  Y. 


13 

~    i. 

U    u 

V 

a 

V  «■« 

""re's 

uH 

11^-     ii 

sh 

, 

S""  s 

«J  n  -a       g  2  S 

4;'nT3'      5  n  S 

ii  S-a 

I.    11    I.   1)      .        u 

^^.^. 

111-    1^^ 

l. 

c  li!  o  :    ft  ^- 

Li 

sJ3    ■« 

2-^ 

??i     -9. 

■a       c       c  u  - 

J= 

Li 

■o       c       c  u  - 

.f= 

;     t 

M  (2.       ^ 

? 

"S     &    Bo  &. 

i 

S 

u        bo      be  ft 

^ 

So      bB    j: 

? 

.SE^Eo     i 

-    -    -    ;; 

- 

- 

- 

" 

; 

^    « 

«5 

• 

■  ~ ,-  c 


c'bio^^,J 


o  bid 


;  't»  g  t 


O    O    '/:    t/}  —  —    C 


iiiie  s  >x 


OJ  t)  p  'T 


«j  e^i-^  ..-5 


b«      Wj  ft     ja  ■ 


II 


.      «  E 
"  u  E  S 

«  E3=  ii  tt-^ 
p  ^  o  'rt  E  "^ 
.      .-      Pit'j: 


"n  S 


bjo       Gift     i'STJ        biO       bed     .Q' 


ft> 
M 

o    C 

!■£  u 

.Sis 


>3  -g    ; 

-a  E 


:  -a  a  V      )ca  - 


.:i  c      .i4j:.i! 


na  wane 
-a  ka'-na 

wa-he< 
i-a-a-na  . 
i-wa-hee' 
e-ka'-na 

wa-hee 
u'-na  ka'- 
'          wa- 

!rt 

C  j3 

»    >rt 

'     C 

u-a    ' 
-\'-ka 
'-na 

ft-t      -'  ^'  ^'  -    o 

rt 

oj  )3 

"b:    rt 

«  o  « 

n 

c       =, 

S-^-? 

.i!  E     -ajiji      E 

:rt 

11 

)3      Ta ' 
J3      Ji: 

>=  '-.a  =? 
ft-i!    S 

"  c  3 

be  c  c 


2  p 


•^  bO 

h  E  rt  2  L- 

"  S  2  bi  bJ3 

J=x>3  ^ 

M  C   =  rt  , 


:§- 


E  rt  S  S 
be  be 


„    yjc    C    CO, 

C  j^  rt  rt  o  - 

°-a  &  be  be 


-S  - 


irjvo  r^co  o  O 


!^C   =   rt 

L-  d  p  rt  r-  i)  * 
"  g-g  be&bfl 

■  1/1  -a  be  fe  be     be 

j=-£:  :  s  :  ;  ;  : 
°  2 


o 
E 


oj  o  j3 

-C  -OT3 

be  c  c 

C    3    p    fJ 


t.   C   2   rt  nl 
<Li   o   c^   r-   H 

■;;  S  T)  be  he 


o" 
E 


3^    3 


S  \  .'^  ."^ ." 

^  •§  §'  I  § 
& — 

y    •tos'Zc---  — 

•a     iSE-S^'Z"  o 

S"    c  3  o  -s 

^        O  "   L-  ,3 


■£   O  I. 

..rt  c  I.  (u 


N   ro  ^  lovo   t^o 


m  ■«*•  u-)\o  r^oo  o\  o 


n>o  i*^o3  o  o  w 


JvOvO^vovO^OVO 


THE  CONSANGUINE  FAMILY. 


423 


.22 
1(5 


1% 


'S'o 


t^    f3    .,   S  ■ 

J  2.5>i;  Si- 


c  j: 

-n  -?  -n  .i  V  <? 
6  Si  <i>1  "«j 

^^  0.  S  E      . 


:    IS. 


=  :  :  :  :  -5^  c  = 

C5  '   "   "   "   "   ' 

CO  o  o  H  ci  m  ;*•  >n^ 


CHAPTER   III. 

THE   PUNALUAN   FAMILY. 

The  Punaluan  Family  supervened  upon  the  Consanguine. — Tran- 
sition, HOW  produced. — Hawaiian  Custom  of  Punalua. — Its  probable 
ancient  Prevalence  over  wide  Areas. — The  Gentes  originated  proba- 
bly in  Punaluan  Groups. — The  Turanian  System  of  Consanguinity. — 
Created  by  the  Punaluan  Family.— It  proves  the  Existence  of  this 
Family  when  the  System  was  formed. — Details  of  System. — Ex- 
planation of  its  Relationships  in  their  Origin. — Table  of  Turanian 
and  Ganow.vnian  Systems  of  Consanguinity  and  Affinity. 

The  Punaluan  family  has  existed  in  Europe,  Asia,  and 
America  within  the  historical  period,  and  in  Polynesia 
within  the  present  century.  With  a  wide  prevalence  in  the 
tribes  of  mankind  in  the  Status  of  Savagery,  it  remained 
in  some  instances  among  tribes  who  had  advanced  into 
the  Lower  Status  of  barbarism,  and  in  one  case,  that  of 
the  Britons,  among  tribes  who  had  attained  the  INIiddle 
Status. 

In  the  course  of  human  progress  it  followed  the  consan- 
guine family,  upon  'yvhich  it  supervened,  and  of  which  it 
was  a  modification.  The  transition  from  one  into  the  other 
was  produced  by  the  gradual  exclusion  of  own  brothers  and 
sisters  from  the  marriage  relation,  the  evils  of  which  could 
not  forever  escape  human  observation.  It  maybe  impossi- 
ble to  recover  the  events  which  led  to  deliverance  ;  but  we 
are  not  without  some  evidence  tending  to  show  how  it  oc- 
curred. Although  the  facts  from  which  these  conclusions 
are  drawn    are   of  a  dreary  and  forbidding  character,  they 


THE  PUN  ALU  AN  FAMILY. 


425 


will  not  surrender  the  knowledge  they  contain  without  a 
patient  as  well  as  careful  examination. 

Given  the  consanguine  family,  which  involved  own  broth- 
ers and  sisters  and  also  collateral  brothers  and  sisters  in  the 
marriage  relation,  and  it  was  only  necessary  to  exclude  the 
former  from  the  group,  and  retain  the, latter,  to  change  the 
consanguine  into  the  punaluan  family.  To  effect  the  exclu- 
sion of  the  one  class  and  the  retention  of  the  other  was  a 
difficult  process,  because  it  involved  a  radic:tl  change  in  the 
composition  of  the  family,  not  to  say  in  the  ancient  plan  of 
domestic  life.  It  also  required  the  surrender  of  a  privilege 
which  savages  would  be  slow  to  make.  Commencing,  it 
may  be  supposed,  in  isolated  cases,  and  with  a  slow  recog- 
nition of  its  adv^antages,  it  remained  an  experiment  through 
immense  expanses  of  time;  introduced  partially  at  first, 
then  becoming  general,  and  finally  universal  among  the 
advancing  tribes,  still  in  savagery,  among  whom  the  move- 
ment originated.  It  affords  a  good  illustration  of  the  opera- 
tion of  the  principle  of  natural  selection. 

The  significance  of  the  Australian  class  system  presents 
itself  anew  in  this  connection.  It  is  evident  from  the  man- 
ner in  which  the  classes  were  formed,  and  from  the  rule 
with  respect  to  marriage  and  descents,  that  their  primary 
object  was  to  exclude  own  brothers  and  sisters  from  the 
marriage  relation,  while  the  collateral  brothers  and  sisters 
were  retained  in  that  relation.  The  former  object  is  im- 
pressed upon  the  classes  by  an  external  law;  but  the  latter, 
which  is  not  apparent  on  the  face  of  the  organization,  is 
made  evident  by  tracing  their  descents.'  It  is  thus  found 
that  first,  second,  and  more  remote  cousins,  who  are  collat- 
eral brothers  and  sisters  under  their  system  of  consanguinity, 
are  brought  perpetually  back  into  the  marriage  relation, 
while  own  brothers  and  sisters  are  excluded.     The  number 

'The  Ippais  and  Kapotas  are  married  in  a  group.  Ippai  begets  Murri,  and 
Murri  in  turn  begets  Ippai  ;  in  like  manner  Kapota  begets  Mata,  and  Mata  in 
turn  begets  Kapota  ;  so  that  the  grandchildren  of  Ippai  and  Kapota  are  them- 
selves Ippais  and  Kapotas,  as  well  as  collateral  brothers  and  sisters  ;  and  as 
such  are  born  husbands  and  wives. 


426  ANCIENT  SOCIETY. 

of  persons  in  the  Australian  punaluan  group  is  greater  than 
in  the  Hawaiian,  and  its  composition  is  slightly  different ; 
but  the  remarkable  fact  remains  in  both  cases,  that  the 
brotherhood  of  the  husbands  formed  the  basis  of  the  mar- 
riage relation  in  one  group,  and  the  sisterhood  of  the  wives 
the  basis  in  the  other.  This  difference,  however,  existed 
with  respect  to  the  Hawaiians,  that  it  does  not  appear  as 
yet  that  there  w^re  any  classes  among  them  between  whom 
marriages  must  occur.  Since  the  Australian  classes  gave 
birth  to  the  punaluan  group,  which  contained  the  germ  of 
the  gens,  it  suggests  the  probability  that  this  organization 
into  classes  upon  sex  once  prevailed  among  all  the  tribes 
of  mankind  who  afterwards  fell  under  the  gentile  organiza- 
tion. It  would  not  be  surprising  if  the  Hawaiians,  at  some 
anterior  period,  were  organized  in  such  classes. 

Remarkable  as  it  may  seem,  three  of  the  most  important 
and  most  wide-spread  institutions  of  mankind,  namely,  the 
punaluan  family,  the  organization  into  gentes,  and  the  Tura- 
nian system  of  consanguinity,  root  themselves  in  an  ante- 
rior organization  analogous  to  the  punaluan  group,  in  which 
the  germ  of  each  is  found.  Some  evidence  of  the  truth  of 
this  proposition  will  appear  in  the  discussion  of  this  family. 

As  punaluan  marriage  gave  the  punaluan  family,  the  lat- 
ter would  give  the  Turanian  system  of  consanguinity,  as 
soon  as  the  existing  system  was  reformed  so  as  to  express 
the  relationships  as  they  actually  existed  in  this  family.  But 
something  more  than  the  punaluan  group  was  needed  to 
produce  this  result,  namely,  the  organization  into  gentes, 
which  permanently  excluded  brothers  and  sisters  from  the 
marriage  relation  by  an  organic  law,  who  before  that,  must 
have  been  frequently  involved  in  that  relation.  When  this 
exclusion  was  made  complete  it  would  work  a  change  in 
all  these  relationships  which  depended  upon  these  mar- 
riages ;  and  when  the  system  of  consanguinity  was  made  to 
conform  to  the  new  state  of  these  relationships,  the  Turanian 
system  would  supervene  upon  the  Malayan.  The  Hawai- 
ians had  the  punaluan  family,  but  neither  the  organization 
into  gentes  nor    the    Turanian    system    of  consanguinity. 


THE  PUN  ALU  AN  FAMILY.  427 

Their  retention  of  the  old  system  of  the  consanguine  fam- 
ily leads  to  a  suspicion,  confirmed  by  the  statements  of  Mr. 
Bingham,  that  own  brothers  and  sisters  were  frequently  in- 
volved in  the  punaluan  group,  thus  rendering  a  reformation 
of  the  old  system  of  consanguinity  impossible.  Whether 
the  punaluan  group  of  the  Hawaiian  type  can  claim  an 
equal  antiquity  with  the  Australian  classes  is  questionable, 
since  the  latter  is  more  archaic  than  any  other  known  con- 
stitution of  society.  But  the  existence  of  a  punaluan  group 
of  one  or  the  other  type  was  essential  to  the  birth  of  the 
gentes,  as  the  latter  were  essential  to  the  production  of  the 
Turanian  system  of  consanguinity.  The  three  institutions 
will  be  considered  separately. 
I.    The  Piinaliiafi  Family. 

In  rare  instances  a  custom  has  been  discovered  in  a  con- 
crete form  usable  as  a  key  to  unlock  some  of  the  mysteries 
of  ancient  society,  and  explain  what  before  could  only  be 
understood  imperfectly.  Such  a  custom  is  the  Punaliia  of 
the  Hawaiians.  In  i860  Judge  Lorin  Andrews,  of  Honolulu, 
in  a  letter  accompanying  a  schedule  of  the  Hawaiian  system 
of  consanguinity,  commented  upon  one  of  the  Hawaiian 
terms  of  relationship  as  follows:  "The  relationship  of 
punaliia  is  rather  amphibious.  It  arose  from  the  fact  that 
two  or  more  brothers  with  their  wives,  or  two  or  more 
sisters  with  their  husbands,  were  inclined  to  possess  each 
other  in  common  ;  but  the  modern  use  of  the  word  is  that 
o{  dear  friend,  or  intimate  companion.''  That  which  Judge 
Andrews  says  they  were  inclined  to  do,  and  which  may  then 
have  been  a  declining  practice,  their  system  of  consanguin- 
ity proves  to  have  been  once  universal  among  them.  The 
Rev.  Artemus  Bishop,  lately  deceased,  one  of  the  oldest  mis- 
sionaries in  these  Islands,  sent  to  the  author  the  same  year, 
with  a  similar  schedule,  the  following  statement  upon  the 
same  subject  :  "  This  confusion  of  relationships  is  the  re- 
sult of  the  ancient  custom  among  relatives  of  the  living 
together  of  husbands  and  wives  in  common."  In  a  pre- 
vious chapter  the  remark  of  Mr.  Bingham  was  quoted  that 
the  polygamy  of  which  he  was  writing,  "  implied  a  plurality 


428  ANCIENT  SOCIETY. 

of  husbands  and  wives."  The  same  fact  is  reiterated  by 
Dr.  Bartlett :  "  The  natives  had  hardly  more  modesty  or 
shame  than  so  many  animals.  Husbands  had  many  wives, 
and  wives  many  husbands,  and  exchanged  with  each  other 
at  pleasure."'  The  form  of  marriage  which  they  found  cre- 
ated a  punaluan  group,  in  which  the  husbands  and  wives 
were  jointly  intermarried  in  the  group.  Each  of  these 
groups,  including  the  children  of  the  marriages,  was  a 
punaluan  family;  for  one  consisted  of  several  brothers  and 
their  wives,  and  the  other  of  several  sisters  with  their  hus- 
bands. 

If  we  now  turn  to  the  Hawaiian  system  of  consanguinity, 
in  the  Table,  it  will  be  found  that  a  man  calls  his  wife's  sis- 
ter his  wife.  All  the  sisters  of  his  wife,  own  as  well  as  col- 
lateral, are  also  his  wives.  But  the  husband  of  his  wife's 
sister  he  caXls  pu^ialiia,  i.  e.,  his  intimate  companion  ;  and  all 
the  husbands  of  the  several  sisters  of  his  wife  the  same. 
They  were  jointly  intermarried  in  the  'group.  These  hus- 
bands were  not,  probably,  brothers  ;  if  they  were,  the  blood 
relationship  would  naturally  have  prevailed  over  the  affin- 
eal  ;  but  their  wives  were  sisters,  own  and  collateral.  In 
this  case  the  sisterhood  of  the  wives  was  the  basis  upon 
which  the  group  was  formed,  "and  their  husbands  stood  to 
each  other  in  the  relationship  o^  pfmalua.  In  the  other 
group,  which  rests  upon  the  brotherhood  of  the  husbands, 
a  woman  calls  her  husband's  brother  her  husband.  All  the 
brothers  of  her  husband,  own  as  well  as  collateral,  were  also 
her  husbands.  But  the  wife  of  her  husband's  brother  she 
QdiWs  pilnalu a,  and  the  several  wives  of  her  husband's  broth- 
ers stand  to  her  in  the  relationship  oi pfinalua.  These  wives 
were  not,  probably,  sisters  of  each  other,  for  the  reason 
stated  in  the  other  case,  although  exceptions  doubtless  ex- 
isted under  both  branches  of  the  custom.  All  these  wives 
stood  to  each  other  in  the  relationship  oi piinaliia. 

It  is  evident  that  the  punaluan  family  was  formed  out  of 
the  consanguine.  Brothers  ceased  to  marry  their  own  sis- 
ters ;  and  after  the  gentile  organization   had   worked  upon 

'  Historical  Sketch  of  the  Missions,  etc.,  in  the  Sandwich  Islands,  etc.,  p.  5. 


THE  PUN  ALU  AN  FAMILY. 


429 


society  its  complete  results,  their  collateral  sisters  as  well. 
But  in  the  interval  they  shared  their  remaining  wives  in 
common.  In  like  manner,  sisters  ceased  m.arrying  their 
own  brothers,  and  after  a  long  period  of  time,  their  collat- 
eral brothers  ;  but  they  shared  their  remaining  husbands  in 
common.  The  advancement  of  society  out  of  the  consan- 
guine into  the  punaluan  family  was  the  inception  of  a  great 
upward  movement,  preparing  the  way  for  the  gentile  or- 
ganization which  gradually  conducted  to  the  syndyasmian 
family,  and  ultimately  to  the  monogamian. 

Another  remarkable  fact  with  respect  to  the  custom  of 
punalua,  is  the  necessity  which  exists  for  its  ancient  preva- 
lence among  the  ancestors  of  the  Turanian  and  Ganowanian 
families  when  their  system  of  consanguinity  was  formed. 
The  reason  is  simple  and  conclusive.  Marriages  in  puna- 
luan groups  explain  the  relationships  in  the  system.  Pre- 
sumptively they  are  those  which  actually  existed  when  this 
system  was  formed.  The  existence  of  the  system,  there- 
fore, requires  the  antecedent  prevalence  of  punaluan  mar- 
riage, and  of  the  punaluan  family.  Advancing  to  the  civil- 
ized nations,  there  seems  to  have  been  an  equal  necessity 
for  the  ancient  existence  of  punaluan  groups  among  the 
remote  ancestors  of  all  such  as  possessed  the  gentile  organ- 
ization— Greeks,  Romans,  Germans,  Celts,  Hebrews — for  it 
is  reasonably  certain  that  all  the  families  of  mankind  who 
rose  under  the  gentile  organization  to  the  practice  of 
monogamy  possessed,  in  prior  times,  the  Turanian  system 
of  consanguinity  which  sprang  from  the  punaluan  group. 
It  will  be  found  that  the  great  movement,  which  com- 
menced in  the  formation  of  this  group,  was,  in  the  main, 
consummated  through  the  organization  into  gentes,  and 
that  the  latter  was  generally  accompanied,  prior  to  the  rise 
of  monogamy,  by  the  Turanian  system  of  consanguinity. 

Traces  of  the  punaluan  custom  remained,  here  and  there, 
down  to  the  Middle  Period  of  barbarism,  in  exceptional 
cases,  in  European,  Asiatic,  and  American  tribes.  The  most 
remarkable  illustration  is  given  by  Caesar  in  stating  the 
marriage   customs  of  the  ancient    Britons.      He    observes 


.oQ  ANCIENT  SOCIETY. 

that,  "  by  tens  and  by  twelves,  husbands  possessed  their 
wives  in  common  ;  and  especially  brothers  with  brothers 
and  parents  with  their  children."  ^ 

This  passage  reveals  a  custom  of  intermarriage  in  the 
group  \^\\\c:}i\  pilnahla  explains.  Barbarian  mothers  would 
not  be  expected  to  show  ten  and  twelve  sons,  as  a  rule,  or 
even  in  exceptional  cases ;  but  under  the  Turanian  system 
of  consanguinity,  which  we  are  justified  in  supposing  the 
Britons  to  have  possessed,  large  groups  of  brothers  are 
always  found,  because  male  cousins,  near  and  remote,  fall 
into  this  category  with  Ego.  Several  brothers  among  the 
Britons,  according  to  Caesar,  possessed  their  wives  in  com- 
mon. Here  we  find  one  branch  of  the  punaluan  custom, 
pure  and  simple.  The  correlative  group  which  this  presup- 
poses, where  several  sisters  shared  their  husbands  in  com- 
mon, is  not  suggested  directly  by  Caesar;  but  it  probably 
existed  as  the  complement  of  the  first.  Something  beyond 
the  first  he  noticed,  namely,  that  parents,  with  their  children, 
shared  their  wives  in  common.  It  is  not  unlikely  that  these 
wives  were  sisters.  Whether  or  not  Caesar  by  this  expres- 
sion referred  to  the  other  group,  it  serves  to  mark  the  ex- 
tent to  which  plural  marriages  in  the  group  existed  among 
the  Britons  ;  and  which  was  the  striking  fact  that  arrested 
the  attention  of  this  distinguished  observer.  Where  sev- 
eral brothers  were  married  to  each  other's  wives,  these 
wives  were  married  to  each  other's  husbands. 

Herodotus,  speaking  of  the  Massagetae,  who  were  in  the 
Middle  Status  of  barbarism,  remarks  that  every  man  had 
one  wife,  yet  all  the  wives  were  common.'  It  may  be  im- 
plied from  this  statement  that  the  syndyasmian  family  had 
begun  to  supervene  upon  the  punaluan.  Each  husband 
paired  with  one  wife,  who  thus  became  his  principal  wife, 
but  within  the  limits  of  the  group  husbands  and  wives 
continued  in  common.     If  Herodotus  intended  to  intimate 

'  Uxores  habent  deni  duodenique  inter  se  communes,  et  maxima  fratres  cum 
fratribus  parentesque  cum  liberis. — De  Bell.  Gall.,  v,  14. 

"^  yvvaiKa  fxiv  yausei  snadroi,  ravrijdi  Se  tziKoiva  xP^ovtai. — 
Lib.  i,  c.  216. 


THE  P  UNAL  UAN  FA  MIL  V.  43 1 

a  state  of  promiscuity,  it  probably  did  not  exist.  The 
Massagetae,  although  ignorant  of  iron,  possessed  flocks  and 
herds,  fought  on  horseback  armed  with  battle-axes  of  cop- 
per and  with  copper-pointed  spears,  and  manufactured  and 
used  the  wagon  (ajja^a).  It  is  not  supposable  that  a 
people  living  in  promiscuity  could  have  attained  such  a 
degree  of  advancement.  He  also  remarks  of  the  Agathyrsi, 
who  were  in  the  same  status  probably,  that  they  had  their 
wives  in  common  that  they  might  all  be  brothers,  and,  as 
members  of  a  common  family,  neither  envy  nor  hate  one 
another.^  Punaluan  marriage  in  the  group  affords  a  more 
rational  and  satisfactory  explanation  of  these,  and  similar 
usages  in  other  tribes  mentioned  by  Herodotus,  than  poly- 
gamy or  general  promiscuity.  His  accounts  are  too  mea- 
ger to  illustrate  the  actual  state  of  society  among  them. 

Traces  of  the  punaluan  custom  were  noticed  in  some  of 
the  least  advanced  tribes  of  the  South  American  aborigines  ; 
but  the  particulars  are  not  fully  given.  Thus,  the  first 
navigators  who  visited  the  coast  tribes  of  Venezuela  found 
a  state  of  society  which  suggests  for  its  explanation  puna- 
luan groups.  "  They  observe  no  law  or  rule  in  matrimony, 
but  took  as  many  wives  as  they  would,  and  they  as  many 
husbands,  quitting  one  another  at  pleasure,  without  reckon- 
ing any  wrong  done  on  either  part.  There  was  no  such 
thing  as  jealousy  among  them,  all  living  as  best  pleased 
them,  without  taking  offence  at  one  another.  .  .  .  The 
houses  they  dwelt  in  were  common  to  all,  and  so  spacious 
that  they  contained  one  hundred  and  sixty  perons,  strongly 
built,  though  covered  with  palm-tree  leaves,  and  shaped 
like  a  bell.'  These  tribes  used  earthen  vessels  and  were 
therefore  in  the  Lower  Status  of  barbarism  ;  but  from  this 
account  were  but  slightly,  removed  from  savagery.     In  this 

'  ETtiHotvov  Se  Tc3v  yvvatHwv  trjv  /.ilciv  vcoievvrat,  iva  xa6iyvrjToi 
TE  dXXjjXGoy  SGodt  xai  oim'jioi  eovteZ  iravrsi  jur}re  (pBovay  uyjz  ex^e'i 
^(pioovrai  ti  aA^.?jXovi. — Lib.  iv,  c.  104. 

^  Herrera's  History  of  America,  1.  c,  i,  216.  Speaking  of  the  coast  tribes  of 
Brazil,  Herrera  further  remarks  that  "  they  live  in  bohios,  or  large  thatched 
cottages,  of  which  there   are   about  eight  in  every  village,  full  of  people,  with 


4^2  ANCIENT  SOCIETY. 

case,  and  in  those  mentioned  by  Herodotus,  the  observa- 
tions upon  which  the  statements  were  made  were  super- 
ficial. It  shows,  at  least,  a  low  condition  of  the  family  and 
of  the  marriage  relation. 

When  North  America  was  discovered  in  its  several  parts, 
the  punaluan  family  seems  to  have  entirely  disappeared. 
No  tradition  remained  among  them,  so  far  as  I  am  aware,  of 
the  ancient  prevalence  of  the  punaluan  custom.  The  fam- 
ily generally  had  passed  out  of  the  punaluan  into  the  syn- 
dyasmian  form;  but  it  was  environed  with  the  remains  of 
an  ancient  conjugal  system  which  points  backward  to  puna- 
luan groups.  One  custom  may  be  cited  of  unmistakable 
punaluan  origin,  which  is  still  recognized  in  at  least  forty 
North  American  Indian  tribes.  Where  a  man  married  the 
eldest  daughter  of  a  family  he  became  entitled  by  custom  to 
all  her  sisters  as  wives  when  they  attained  the  marriageable 
age.  It  was  a  right  seldom  enforced,  from  the  difficulty,  on 
the  part  of  the  individual,  of  maintaining  several  families, 
although  polygamy  was  recognized  universally  as  a  privilege 
of  the  males.  We  find  in  this  the  remains  of  the  custom  of 
punalua  among  their  remote  ancestors.  Undoubtedly  there 
was  a  time  among  them  when  own  sisters  went  into  the  mar- 
riage relation  on  the  basis  of  their  sisterhood  ;  the  husband 
of  one  being  the  husband  of  all,  but  not  the  only  husband, 
for  other  males  were  joint  husbands  with  him  in  the  group. 
After  the  punaluan  family  fell  out,  the  right  remained  with 
the  husband  of  the  eldest  sister  to  become  the  husband  of 
all  her  sisters  if  he  chose  to  claim  it.  It  may  Avith  reason 
be  regarded  as  a  genuine  survival  of  the  ancient  punaluan 
custom. 

Other  traces  of  this  family  among  the  tribes  of  mankind 
might  be  cited  from  historical  works,  tending  to  show  not 
only  its  ancient  existence,  but  its  wide  prevalence  as  well. 
It  is  unnecessary,  however,  to  extend  these  citations,  be- 

their  nests  or  hammocks  to  lye  in.  .  .  .  They  live  in  a  beastly  manner, 
without  any  regard  to  justice  or  decency." — Ib.^  iv,  94.  Garcilasso  de  la 
Vega  gives  an  equally  unfavorable  account  of  the  marriage  relation  among 
some  of  the  lowest  tribes  of  Peru. — Royal  Com.  of  rent,  1.  c,  pp.  10  and  106. 


THE  P  UNAL  UA  N  FA  MIL  V.  43  3 

cause  the  antecedent  existence  of  the  punaluan  family 
among  the  ancestors  of  all  the  tribes  who  possess,  or  did 
possess,  the  Turanian  system  of  consanguinity  can  be  de- 
duced from  the  system  itself. 

II.   Origin  of  tJie  Organization  into  Gentcs. 

It  has  before  been  suggested  that  the  time,  when  this 
institution  originated,  was  the  period  of  savagery,  firstly, 
because  it  is  found  in  complete  development  in  the  Lower 
Status  of  barbarism ;  and  secondly,  because  it  is  found  in 
partial  development  in  the  Status  of  savagery.  Moreover, 
the  germ  of  the  gens  is  found  as  plainly  in  the  Australian 
classes  as  in  the  Hawaiian  punaluan  group.  Thegentes  are 
also  found  among  the  Australians,  based  upon  the  classes, 
with  the  apparent  manner  of  their  organization  out  of  them. 
Such  a  remarkable  institution  as  the  gens  would  not  be 
expected  to  spring  into  existence  complete,  or  to  grow  out 
of  nothing,  that  is,  without  a  foundation  previously  formed 
by  natural  growth.  Its  birth  must  be  sought  in  pre-exist- 
ing elements  of  society,  and  its  maturity  would  be  expected 
to  occur  long  after  its  origination. 

Two  of  the  fundamental  rules  of  the  gens  in  its  archaic 
form  are  found  in  the  Australian  classes,  namely,  the  pro- 
hibition of  intermarriage  between  brothers  and  sisters,  and 
descent  in  the  female  line.  The  last  fact  is  made  entirely 
evident  when  the  gens  appeared,  for  the  children  are  then 
found  in  the  gens  of  their  mothers.  The  natural  adaptation 
of  the  classes  to  give  birth  to  the  gens  is  sufficiently  obvious 
to  suggest  the  probability  that  it  actually  so  occurred. 
Moreover,  this  probability  is  strengthened  by  the  fact  that 
the  gens  is  here  found  in  connection  with  an  antecedent  and 
more  archaic  organization,  which  was  still  the  unit  of  a 
social  system,  a  place  belonging  of  right  to  the  gens. 

Turning  now  to  the  Hawaiian  punaluan  group,  the  same 
elements  are  found  containing  the  germ  of  the  gens.  It  is 
confined,  however,  to  the  female  branch  of  the  custom, 
where  several  sisters,  own  and  collateral,  shared  their  hus- 
bands in  common.  These  sisters,  with  their  children  and 
descendants  through  females,  furnish  the  exact  membership 
28 


434  ANCIENT  SOCIETY. 

of  a  gens  of  the  archaic  type.  Descent  would  necessarily 
be  traced  through  females,  because  the  paternity  of  children 
was  not  ascertainable  with  certainty.  As  soon  as  this  spe- 
cial form  of  marriage  in  the  group  became  an  established 
institution,  the  foundation  for  a  gens  existed.  It  then  re- 
quired an  exercise  of  intelligence  to  turn  this  natural  pu- 
naluan  group  into  an  organization,  restricted  to  these 
mothers,  their  children,  and  descendants  in  the  female  line. 
The  Hawaiians,  although  this  group  existed  among  them, 
did  not  rise  to  the  conception  of  a  gens.  But  to  precisely 
such  a  group  as  this,  resting  upon  the  sisterhood  of  the 
mothers,  or  to  the  similar  Australian  group,  resting  upon 
the  same  principle  of  union,  the  origin  of  the  gens  must 
be  ascribed.  It  took  this  group  as  it  found  it,  and  organ- 
ized certain  of  its  members,  with  certain  of  their  posterity, 
into  a  gens  on  the  basis  of  kin. 

To  explain  the  exact  manner  in  which  the  gens  origi- 
nated is,  of  course,  impossible.  The  facts  and  circumstances 
belong  to  a  remote  antiquity.  But  the  gens  may  be  traced 
back  to  a  condition  of  ancient  society  calculated  to  bring  it 
into  existence.  This  is  all  I  have  attempted  to  do.  It  be- 
longs in  its  origin  to  a  low  stage  of  human  development, 
and  to  a  very  ancient  condition  of  society  ;  though  later  in 
time  than  the  first  appearance  of  the  punaluan  family.  It 
is  quite  evident  that  it  sprang  up  in  this  family,  which  con- 
sisted of  a  group  of  persons  coincident  substantially  with 
the  membership  of  a  gens. 

The  influence  of  the  gentile  organization  upon  ancient 
society  was  conservative  and  elevating.  After  it  had  be- 
,  come  fully  developed  and  expanded  over  large  areas,  and 
\  after  time  enough  had  elapsed  to  Avork  its  full  influence 
upon  society,  wives  became  scarce  in  place  of  their  former 
abundance,  because  it  tended  to  contract  the  size  of  the 
punaluan  group,  and  finally  to  overthrow  it.  The  syndyas- 
mian  family  was  gradually  produced  within  the  punaluan, 
after  the  gentile  organization  became  predominant  over  an- 
cient society.  The  intermediate  stages  of  progress  are  not 
well  ascertained;  but,  given  the  punaluan  family  in  the  Sta- 


THE  P  UNA  L  UA  N  FA  MIL  V.  435 

tus  of  savagery,  and  the  syndyasmian  family  in  the  Lower 
Status  of  barbarism,  and  the  fact  of  progress  from  one  into 
the  other  may  be  deduced  with  reasonable  certainty.  It 
was  after  the  latter  family  began  to  appear,  and  punaluan 
groups  to  disappear,  that  wives  came  to  be  sought  by  pur- 
chase and  by  capture.  Without  discussing  the  evidence 
still  accessible,  it  is  a  plain  inference  that  the  gentile  organ- 
ization was  the  efficient  cause  of  the  final  overthrow  of 
the  punaluan  family,  and  of  the  gradual  reduction  of  the 
stupendous  conjugal  system  of  the  period  of  savagery. 
While  it  originated  in  the  punaluan  group,  as  we  must  sup- 
pose, it  nevertheless  carried  society  beyond  and  above  its 
plane. 

III.  T/ie  Turanian  or  Ganozudnian  System  of  Consan- 
guinity. 

This  system  and  the  gentile  organization,  when  in  its 
archaic  form,  are  usually  found  together.  They  are  not 
mutually  dependent  ;  but  they  probably  appeared  not  far 
apart  in  the  order  of  human  progress.  But  systems  of  con- 
sanguinity and  the  several  forms  of  the  family  stand  in 
direct  relations.  The  family  represents  an  active  principle. 
It  is  never  stationary,  but  advances  from  a  lower  to  a  higher 
form  as  society  advances  from  a  lower  to  a  higher  condi- 
tion, and  finally  passes  out  of  one  form  into  another  of 
higher  grade.  Systems  of  consanguinity,  on  the  contrary, 
are  passive  ;  recording  the  progress  made  by  the  family  at 
long  intervals  apart,  and  only  changing  radically  when  the 
family  has  radically  changed. 

The  Turanian  system  could  not  have  been  formed  unless 
punaluan  marriage  and  the  punaluan  family  had  existed  at 
the  time.  In  a  society  wherein  by  general  usage  several 
sisters  were  married  in  a  group  to  each  other's  husbands,  and 
several  brothers  in  a  group  to  each  other's  wives,  the  condi- 
tions were  present  for  the  creation  of  the  Turanian  system. 
Any  system  formed  to  express  the  actual  relationships  as 
they  existed  in  such  a  family  would,  of  necessity,  be  the 
Turanian  ;  and  would,  of  itself,  demonstrate  the  existence 
of  such  a  family  when  it  was  formed. 


436  ANCIENT  SOCIE  T V. 

It  is  now  proposed  to  take  up  this  remarkable  system  as 
it  still  exists  in  the  Turanian  and  Ganowanian  families,  and 
offer  it  in  evidence  to  prove  the  existence  of  the  punaluan 
family  at  the  time  it  was  established.  It  has  come  down  to 
the  present  time  on  two  continents  after  the  marriage  cus- 
toms in  which  it  originated  had  disappeared,  and  after  the 
family  had  passed  out  of  the  punaluan  into  the  syndyas- 
mian  form. 

In  order  to  appreciate  the  evidence  it  will  be  necessary 
to  examine  the  details  of  the  system.  That  of  the  Seneca- 
Iroquois  will  be  used  as  typical  on  the  part  of  the  Gano- 
wanian tribes  of  America,  and  that  of  the  Tamil  people  of 
South  India  on  the  part  of  the  Turanian  tribes  of  Asia. 
These  forms,  which  are  substantially  identical  through 
upwards  of  two  hundred  relationships  of  the  same  person, 
will  be  found  in  a  Table  at  the  end  of  this  chapter.  In  a 
previous  work'  I  have  presented  in  full  the  system  of  con- 
sanguinity of  some  seventy  American  Indian  tribes  ;  and 
among  Asiatic  tribes  and  nations  that  of  the  Tamil,  Telugu, 
and  Canarese  people  of  South  India,  among  all  of  whom 
the  system,  as  given  in  the  Table,  is  now  in  practical  daily 
use.  There  are  diversities  in  the  systems  of  the  different 
tribes  and  nations,  but  the  radical  features  are  constant. 
All  alike  salute  by  kin,  but  with  this  difference,  that  among 
the  Tamil  people  where  the  person  addressed  is  younger 
than  the  speaker,  the  term  of  relationship  must  be  used  ; 
but  when  older  the  option  is  given  to  salute  by  kin  or  by 
the  personal  name.  On  the  contrary,  among  the  American 
aborigines,  the  address  must  always  be  by  the  term  of  rela- 
tionship. They  use  the  system  in  addresses  because  it  is  a 
system  of  consanguinity  and  affinity.  It  was  also  the  means 
by  which  each  individual  in  the  ancient  gentes  was  able  to 
trace  his  connection  with  every  member  of  his  gens  until 
monogany  broke  up  the  Turanian  system.  It  will  be  found, 
in  many  cases,  that  the  relationship  of  the  same  person  to 


'  Systems  of  Consanguinity  and  Affinity  of  the  Human  Family,  Smithsonian 
Contributions  to  Knowledge,  vol.  xvii. 


THE  P  UNA  L  UA  N  FA  MIL  V.  437 

E^o  is  different  as  the  sex  of  £^0  is  changed.  For  this 
reason  it  was  found  necessary  to  state  the  question  twice, 
once  with  a  male  speaking,  and  again  with  a  female.  Not- 
withstanding the  diversities  it  created,  the  system  is  logical 
throughout.  To  exhibit  its  character,  it  will  be  necessary 
to  pass  through  the  several  lines  as  was  done  in  the  Malayan 
system.     The  Seneca-Iroquois  will  be  used. 

The  relationships  of  grandfather  {Hoc'-sote),  and  grand- 
mother {Oc'-sotc),  and  of  grandson  {Ha-yd'-da),  and  grand- 
daughter {Ka-yd'-da),  are  the  most  remote  recognized  either 
in  the  ascending  or  descending  series.  Ancestors  and  dcr. 
scendants  above  and  below  these,  fall  into  the  same  cateories 
respectively. 

The  relationships  of  brother  and  sister  are  conceived  in 
the  twofold  form  of  elder  and  younger,  and  not  in  the 
abstract  ;  and  there  are  special  terms  for  each,  as  follow : 

Elder  Brother,        Ila'-je.  Elder  Sister,         Ah'-je. 

Younger  Brother,  Ua'-gd.  Younger  Sister,   Ka  -gd. 

These  terms  are  used  by  the  males  and  females,  and  are 
applied  to  all  such  brothers  or  sisters  as  are  older  or  younger 
than  the  person  speaking.  In  Tamil  there  are  two  sets  of 
terms  for  these  relationships,  but  they  are  now  used  indis- 
criminately by  both  sexes. 

First  Collateral  Line.  With  myself  a  male,  and  speaking 
as  a  Seneca,  my  brother's  son  and  daughter  are  my  son  and 
daughter  [Ha-ah'-zvuk,  and  Ka-aJi'-wuk),  each  of  them  call- 
ing me  father  {Hd'-niJi).  This  is  the  first  indicative  feature 
of  the  system.  It  places  my  brother's  children  in  the  same 
category  with  my  own.  They  are  my  children  as  well  as 
his.  My  brother's  grandchildren  are  my  grandsons  and 
granddaughters  {Ha-yd'-da,  and  Ka-yd'-da,  singular),  each 
of  them  calling  me  grandfather  {Hoc'-sote).  The  relation- 
ships here  given  are  those  recognized  and  applied  ;  none 
others  are  known. 

Certain  relationships  will  be  distinguished  as  indica- 
tive. They  usually  control  those  that  precede  and  follow. 
When  they  agree  in  the  systems  of  different  tribes,  and 
even    of  different   families   of  mankind,    as    in    the    Tura- 


438  ANCIENT  SOCIETY. 

nian  and  Ganowanian,  they  establish  their  fundamental 
identity. 

In  the  female  branch  of  this  line,  myself  still  a  male, 
my  sister's  son  and  daughter  are  my  nephew  and  niece 
{Ha-yd'-zvan-da,  and  Ka-yd'-wan-da),  each  of  them  calling 
me  uncle  {Hoc-no' -sc/i).  This  is  a  second  indicative  feature. 
It  restricts  the  relationships  of  nephew  and  niece  to  the 
children  of  a  man's  sisters,  own  or  collateral.  The  children 
of  this  nephew  and  niece  are  my  grandchildren  as  before, 
each  of  them  applying  to  me  the  proper  correlative. 

With  myself  a  female,  a  part  of  these  relationships  are 
reversed.  My  brother's  son  and  daughter  are  my  nephew 
and  niece  {Ha-soh'-nck,  and  Ka-soh'-nch),  each  of  them  call- 
ing me  aunt  {Ah-ga'-hiic).  It  will  be  noticed  that  the 
terms  for  nephew  and  niece  used  by  the  males  are  different 
from  those  used  by  the  females.  The  children  of  these 
nephews  and  nieces  are  my  grandchildren.  In  the  female 
branch,  my  sister's  son  and  daughter  are  my  son  and 
daughter,  each  of  them  calling  me  mother  {Noh-yeh'),  and 
their  children  are  my  grandchildren,  each  of  them  calling 
me  grandmother  [Oc'-sote). 

The  wives  of  these  sons  and  nephews  are  my  daughters- 
in-law  (Ka'-sd),  and  the  husbands  of  these  daughters  and 
nieces  are  my  sons-in-law  {Oc-r/a'-/iose,  each  term  singular), 
and  they  apply  to  me  the  proper  correlative. 

Second  Collateral  Line.  In  the  male  branch  of  this  line, 
on  the  father's  side,  and  irrespective  of  the  sex  o{  Ego,  my 
father's  brother  is  my  father,  and  calls  me  his  son  or  daugh- 
ter as  I  am  a  male  or  a  female.  Third  indicative  feature. 
All  the  brothers  of  a  father  are  placed  in  the  relation  of 
fathers.  His  son  and  daughter  are  my  brother  and  sister, 
elder  or  younger,  and  I  apply  to  them  the  same  terms  I 
use  to  designate  own  brothers  and  sisters.  Fourth  indica- 
tive feature.  It  places  the  children  of  brothers  in  the  rela- 
tionship of  brothers  and  sisters.  The  children  of  these 
brothers,  myself  a  male,  are  my  sons  and  daughters,  and 
their  children  are  my  grandchildren  ;  whilst  the  children  of 
these  sisters  are  my  nephews  and  nieces,  and  the  children  of 


THE  P UNAL  UAN  FAMIL  Y.  439 

the  latter  are  my  grandchildren.  But  with  myself  a  female 
the  children  of  these  brothers  are  my  nephews  and  nieces, 
the  children  of  these  sisters  are  my  sons  and  daughters,  and 
their  children,  alike  are  my  grandchildren.  It  is  thus  seen 
that  the  classification  in  the  first  collateral  line  is  carried 
into  the  second,  as  it  is  into  the  third  and  more  remote  as 
far  as  consanguinei  can  be  traced. 

My  father's  sister  is  my  aunt,  and  calls  me  her  nephew  if 
I  am  a  male.  Fifth  indicative  feature.  The  relationship 
of  aunt  is  restricted  to  the  sisters  of  my  father,  and  to  the 
sisters  of  such  other  persons  as  stand  to  me  in  the  relation 
of  a  father,  to  the  exclusion  of  the  sisters  of  my  mother. 
My  father's  sister's  children  are  my  cousins  {Ah-garc'-seh, 
singular),  each  of  them  calling  me  cousin.  With  myself  a 
male,  the  children  of  my  male  cousins  are  my  sons  and 
daughters,  and  of  my  female  cousins  are  my  nephews  and 
nieces  ;  but  with  myself  a  female  these  last  relationships  are 
reversed.  All  the  children  of  the  latter  are  my  grand- 
children. 

On  the  mother's  side,  myself  a  male,  my  mother's  brother 
is  my  uncle,  and  calls  me  his  nephew.  Sixth  indicative 
feature.  The  relationship  of  uncle  is  restricted  to  the 
brothers  of  my  mother,  own  and  collateral,  to  the  exclusion 
of  my  father's  brothers.  His  children  are  my  cousins,  the 
children  of  my  male  cousins  are  my  sons  and  daughters,  of 
my  female  cousins  are  my  nephews  and  nieces  ;  but  with 
myself  a  female  these  last  relationships  are  reversed,  the 
children  of  all  alike  are  my  grandchildren. 

In  the  female  branch  of  the  same  line  my  mother's  sis- 
ter is  my  mother.  Seventh  indicative  feature.  All  of  sev- 
eral sisters,  own  and  collateral,  are  placed  in  the  relation  of 
a  mother  to  the  children  of  each  other.  My  mother's  sis- 
ter's children  are  my  brothers  and  sisters,  elder  or  younger. 
Eighth  indicative  feature.  It  establishes  the  relationship 
of  brother  and  sister  among  the  children  of  sisters.  The 
children  of  these  brothers  are  my  sons  and  daughters, 
of  these  sisters  are  my  nephews  and  nieces  ;  and  the  chil- 
dren of  the   latter  are  my   grandchildren.     With   myself  a 


440  ANCIENT  SOCIETY. 

female  the  same  relationships  are  reversed  as  in  previous 
cases. 

Each  of  the  wives  of  these  several  brothers,  and  of  these 
several  male  cousins  is  my  sister-in-law  {Ah-ge-a/i  -ne-ah) , 
each  of  them  calling  me  brother-in-law  {Ha-ya'-o).  The 
precise  meaning  of  the  former  term  is  not  known.  Each  of 
the  husbands  of  these  several  sisters  and  female  cousins  is 
my  brother-in-law,  and  they  all  apply  to  me  the  proper 
correlative.  Traces  of  the  punaluan  custom  remain  here  and 
there  in  the  marriage  relationship  of  the  American  aborig- 
ines, namely,  between  Ego  and  the  wives  of  several  broth- 
ers and  the  husbands  of  several  sisters.  In  Mandan  my 
brother's  wife  is  my  wife,  and  in  Pawnee  and  Arickaree  the 
same.  In  Crow  my  husband's  brother's  wife  is  "  my  com- 
rade "  {^Bot-ze  -no-pd-cJic),  in  Creek  my  "  present  occupant  " 
(C/ni-hji'-cho-iud),  and  in  Munsee  "  my  friend  "  [Naiu-jose''). 
In  Winnebago  and  Achaotinne  she  is  ''  my  sister."  My 
wife's  sister's  husband,  in  sonie  tribes  is  "my  brother,"  in 
others  my  "  brother-in-law,"  and  in  Creek  "  my  little  separ- 
2A.ex'\Un-kd-pu' -die),  whatever  that  may  mean. 

Third  Collateral  Line.  As  the  relationships  in  the  several 
branches  of  this  line  are  the  same  as  in  the  corresponding 
branches  of  the  second,  with  the  exception  of  one  additional 
ancestor,  it  will  be  sufficient  to  present  one  branch  out  of 
the  four.  My  father's  father's  brother  is  my  grandfather, 
and  calls  me  his  grandson.  This  is  a  ninth  indicative  fea- 
ture, and  the  last  of  the  number.  It  places  these  brothers 
in  the  relation  of  grandfathers,  and  thus  prevents  collateral 
ascendants  from  passing  beyond  this  relationship.  The 
principle  which  merges  the  collateral  lines  in  the  lineal  line 
works  upward  as  well  as  downward.  The  son  of  this  grand- 
father is  my  father  ;  his  children  are  my  brothers  and  sisters  ; 
the  children  of  these  brothers  are  my  sons  and  daughters, 
of  these  sisters  are  my  nephews  and  nieces;  and  their  chil- 
dren are  my  grandchildren.  With  myself  a  female  the  same 
relationships  are  reserved  as  in  previous  cases.  Moreover, 
the  correlative  term  is  applied  in  every  instance. 

Fourth  Collateral  Line.     It  will  be  sufficient,  for  the  same 


THE  PUNAL  UAN  FAMIL  V.  44I 

reason,  to  give  but  a  single  branch  of  this  line.  My  grand- 
father's father's  brother  is  my  grandfather ;  his  son  is  also 
my  grandfather;  the  son  of  the  latter  is  my  father;  his  son 
and  daughter  are  my  brother  and  sister,  elder  or  younger; 
and  their  children  and  grandchildren  follow  in  the  same 
relationships  to  E^o  as  in  other  cases.  In  the  fifth  colla- 
teral line  the  classification  is  the  same  in  its  several  branches 
as  in  the  corresponding  branches  of  the  second,  with  the 
exception  of  additional  ancestors. 

It  follows,  from  the  nature  of  the  system,  that  a  knowl- 
edge of  the  numerical  degrees  of  consanguinity  is  essen- 
tial to  a  proper  classification  of  kindred.  But  to  a  native 
Indian  accustomed  to  its  daily  use  the  apparent  maze  of 
relationships  presents  no  difficulty. 

Among  the  remaining  marriage  relationships  there  are 
terms  in  Seneca-Iroquois  for  father-in-law  {Oc-/ia'-/iosc),  for 
a  wife's  father,  and  {Hd-ga-sd)  for  a  husband's  father.  The 
former  term  is  also  used  to  designate  a  son-in-law,  thus 
showing  it  to  be  reciprocal.  There  are  also  terms  for  step- 
father and  step-mother  {^Hoc'-no-cse)  and  {Oc'-no-ese),  and 
for  step-son  and  step-daughter  {Ha -no  and  Ka'-nd).  In  a 
number  of  tribes  two  fathers-in-law  and  two  mothers-in- 
law  are  related,  and  there  are  terms  to  express  the  connec- 
tion. The  opulence  of  the  nomenclature,  although  made 
necessary  by  the  elaborate  discriminations  of  the  system,  is 
nevertheless  remarkable.  For  full  details  of  the  Seneca- 
Iroquois  and  Tamil  system  reference  is  made  to  the  Table. 
Their  identity  is  apparent  on  bare  inspection.  It  shows 
not  only  the  prevalence  of  punaluan  marriage  amongst 
their  remote  ancestors  when  the  system  was  formed,  but 
also  the  powerful  impression  which  this  form  of  marriage 
made  upon  ancient  society.  It  is,  at  the  same  time,  one  of 
the  most  extraordinary  applications  of  the  natural  logic  of 
the  human  mind  to  the  facts  of  the  social  system  pre- 
served in  the  experience  of  mankind. 

That  the  Turanian  and  Ganowanian  system  was  engrafted 
upon  a  previous  Malayan,  or  one  like  it  in  all  essential 
respects,  is  now  demonstrated.     In  about  one-half  of  all  the 


442  ANCIENT  SOCIETY. 

relationships  named,  the  two  are  identical.  If  those  are 
examined,  in  which  the  Seneca  and  Tamil  differ  from  the 
Hawaiian,  it  will  be  found  that  the  difference  is  upon  those 
relationships  which  depended  on  the  intermarriage  or  non- 
intermarriage  of  brothers  and  sisters.  In  the  former  two, 
for  example,  my  sister's  son  is  my  nephew,  but  in  the  lat- 
ter he  is  my  son.  The  two  relationships  express  the  differ- 
ence between  the  consanguine  and  punaluan  families.  The 
change  of  relationships  which  resulted  from  substituting 
punaluan  in  the  place  of  consanguine  marriages  turns  the 
Malayan  into  the  Turanian  system.  But  it  may  be  asked 
why  the  Hawaiians,  who  had  the  punaluan  family,  did  not 
reform  their  system  of  consanguinity  in  accordance  there- 
with? The  answer  has  elsewhere  been  given,  but  it  maybe 
repeated.  The  form  of  the  family  keeps  in  advance  of  the 
system.  In  Polynesia  it  was  punaluan  while  the  system 
remained  Malayan  ;  in  America  it  was  syndyasmian  while 
the  system  remained  Turanian  ;  and  in  Europe  and  Western 
Asia  it  became  monogamian  while  the  system  seems  to  have 
remained  Turanian  for  a  time,  but  it  then  fell  into  deca- 
dence, and  was  succeeded  by  the  Aryan.  Furthermore, 
although  the  family  has  passed  through  five  forms,  but 
three  distinct  systems  of  consanguinity  were  created,  so  far 
as  is  now  known.  It  required  an  organic  change  in  society 
attaining  unusual  dimensions  to  change  essentially  an  estab- 
lished system  of  consanguinity.  I  think  it  will  be  found 
that  the  organization  into  gentes  was  sufficiently  influen- 
tial and  sufficiently  universal  to  change  the  Malayan  system 
into  the  Turanian  ;  and  that  monogamy,  when  fully  estab- 
lished in  the  more  advanced  branches  of  the  human  family, 
was  sufficient,  with  the  influence  of  property,  to  overthrow 
the  Turanian  system  and  substitute  the  Aryan. 

It  remains  to  explain  the  origin  of  such  Turanian  rela- 
tionships as  differ  from  the  Malayan.  Punaluan  marriages 
and  the  gentile  organizations  form  the  basis  of  the  explana- 
tion. 

I.  All  the  children  of  my  several  brothers,  own  and  col 
lateral,  myself  a  male,  are  my  sons  and  daughters. 


THE  P  UNA  LUAN  FA  MIL  V.  443 

Reasons :  Speaking  as  a  Seneca,  all  the  wives  of  my  sev- 
eral brothers  are  mine  as  well  as  theirs.  We  are  now 
speaking  of  the  time  when  the  system  was  formed.  It  is 
the  same  in  the  Malayan,  where  the  reasons  are  assigned. 

II.  All  the  children  of  my  several  sisters,  own  and  collat- 
eral, myself  a  male,  are  my  nephews  and  nieces. 

Reasons  :  Under  the  gentile  organization  these  females, 
by  a  law  of  the  gens,  cannot  be  my  wives.  Their  children, 
therefore,  can  no  longer  be  my  children,  but  stand  to  me  in 
a  more  remote  relationship;  whence  the  new  relationships 
of  nephew  and  niece.     This  differs  from  the  Malayan. 

III.  With  myself  a  female,  the  children  of  my  several 
brothers,  own  and  collateral,  are  my  nephews  and  nieces. 

Reasons,  as  in  II.     This  also  differs  from   the  Malayan. 

IV.  With  myself  a  female,  the  children  of  my  several  sis- 
ters, own  and  collateral,  and  of  my  several  female  cousins, 
are  my  sons  and  daughters. 

Reasons  :  All  their  husbands  are  my  husbands  as  well. 
In  strictness  these  children  are  my  step-children,  and  are  so 
described  in  Ojibwa  and  several  other  Algonkin  tribes  ;  but 
in  the  Seneca-Iroquois,  and  in  Tamil,  following  the  ancient 
classification,  they  are  placed  in  the  category  of  my  sons 
and  daughters,  for  reasons  given  in  the  Malayan. 

V.  All  the  children  of  these  sons  and  daughters  are  my 
grandchildren. 

Reason  :  They  are  the  children  of  my  sons  and  daughters. 

VI.  All  the  children  of  these  nephews  and  nieces  are  my 
grandchildren. 

Reason  :  These  were  the  relationships  of  the  same  per- 
sons under  the  Malayan  system,  which  presumptively  pre- 
ceded the  Turanian.  No  new  one  having  been  invented, 
the  old  would  remain. 

VII.  All  the  brothers  of  my  father,  own  and  collateral, 
are  my  fathers. 

Reason  :  They  are  the  husbands  of  my  mother.  It  is  the 
same  in  Malayan. 

VIII.  All  the  sisters  of  my  father,  own  and  collateral, 
are  my  aunts. 

Reason  :   Under  the  gentile  organization  neither  can  be 


444 


ANCIENT  SOCIETY. 


the  wife  of  my  father ;  wherefore  the  previous  relationship 
of  mother  is  inadmissible.  A  new  relationship,  therefore, 
was  required  :  whence  that  of  aunt. 

IX.  All  the  brothers  of  my  mother,  own  and  collateral, 
are  my  uncles. 

Reasons  :  They  are  no  longer  the  husbands  of  my  mother, 
and  must  stand  to  me  in  a  more  remote  relationship  than 
that  of  father  :  whence  the  new  relationship  of  uncle. 

X.  All  the  sisters  of  my  mother,  own  and  collateral,  are 
my  mothers. 

Reasons,  as  in  IV. 

XI.  All  the  children  of  my  father's  brothers,  and  all  the 
children  of  my  mother's  sisters,  own  and  collateral,  are  my 
brothers  and  sisters. 

Reasons  :  It  is  the  same  in  Malayan,  and  for  reasons 
there  given. 

XII.  All  the  children  of  my  several  uncles  and  all  the 
children  of  my  several  aunts,  own  and  collateral,  are  my 
male  and  female  cousins. 

Reasons:  Under  the  gentile  organization  all  these  uncles 
and  aunts  are  excluded  from  the  marriage  relation  with  my 
father  and  mother ;  wherefore  their  children  cannot  stand 
to  me  in  the  relation  of  brothers  and  sisters,  as  in  the  Ma- 
layan, but  must  be  placed  in  one  more  remote  :  whence  the 
new  relationship  of  cousin. 

XIII.  In  Tamil  all  the  children  of  my  male  cousins,  my- 
self a  male,  are  my  nephews  and  nieces,  and  all  the  children 
of  my  female  cousins  are  my  sons  and  daughters.  This  is 
the  exact  reverse  of  the  rule  among  the  Seneca-Iroquois. 
It  tends  to  show  that  among  the  Tamil  people,  when  the 
Turanian  system  came  in,  all  my  female  cousins  were  my 
wives,  whilst  the  wives  of  my  male  cousins  were  not.  It  is 
a  singular  fact  that  the  deviation  on  these  relationships  is 
the  only  one  of  any  importance  between  the  two  systems 
in  the  relationships  to  Ego  of  some  two  hundred  persons. 

XIV.  All  the  brothers  and  sisters  of  my  grandfather  and 
of  my  grandmother  are  my  grandfathers  and  grandmothers. 

Reason:  It  is  the  same  in  Malayan,  and  for  the  reasons 
there  given. 


THE  PUNALUAN  FAMILY.  445 

It  is  now  made  additionally  plain  that  both  the  Tura- 
nian and  Ganowanian  systems,  which  are  identical,  super- 
vened upon  an  original  Malayan  system ;  and  that  the 
latter  must  have  prevailed  generally  in  Asia  before  the 
Malayan  migration  to  the  Islands  of  the  Pacific.  More- 
over, there  are  good  grounds  for  believing  that  the  system 
was  transmitted  in  the  Malayan  form  to  the  ancestors  of  the 
three  families,  with  the  streams  of  the  blood,  from  a  com- 
mon Asiatic  source,  and  afterward,  modified  into  its  present 
form  by  the  remote  ancestors  of  the  Turanian  and  Gano- 
wanian families. 

The  principal  relationships  of  the  Turanian  system  have 
now  been  explained  in  their  origin,  and  are  found  to  be 
those  which  would  actually  exist  in  the  punaluan  family  as 
near  as  the  parentage  of  children  could  be  known.  The 
system  explains  itself  as  an  organic  growth,  and  since  it 
could  not  have  originated  without  an  adequate  cause,  the 
inference  becomes  legitimate  as  well  as  necessary  that  it 
was  created  by  punaluan  families.  It  will  be  noticed,  how- 
ever, that  several  of  the  marriage  relationships  have  been 
changed. 

The  system  treats  all  brothers  as  the  husbands  of  each 
other's  wives,  and  all  sisters  as  the  wives  of  each  other's 
husbands,  and  as  intermarried  in  a  group.  At  the  time  the 
system  was  formed,  wherever  a  man  found  a  brother,  own 
or  collateral,  and  those  in  that  relation  Avere  numerous,  in 
the  wife  of  that  brother  he  found  an  additional  wife.  In 
like  manner,  wherever  a  woman  found  a  sister,  own  or  col- 
lateral, and  those  in  that  relation  were  equally  numerous, 
in  the  husband  of  that  sister  she  found  an  additional  hus- 
band. The  brotherhood  of  the  husbands  and  the  sisterhood 
of  the  wives  formed  the  basis  of  the  relation.  It  is  fully 
expressed  by  the  Hawaiian  Q.w%\.ova  oi  punali'ta.  Theoreti- 
cally, the  family  of  the  period  was  coextensive  with  the 
group  united  in  the  marriage  relation  ;  but,  practically,  it 
must  have  subdivided  into  a  number  of  smaller  families  for 
convenience  of  habitation  and  subsistence.  The  brothers, 
by  tens  and  twelves,  of  the  Britons,  married  to  each  other's 
wives,  would  indicate  the  size  of  an  ordinary  subdivision  of 


446  ANCIENT  SOCIETY. 

a  punaluan  group.  Communism  in  living  seems  to  have 
originated  in  the 'necessities  of  the  consanguine  family,  to 
have  been  continued  in  the  punaluan,  and  to  have  been 
transmitted  to  the  syndyasmian  among  the  American  abo- 
rigines, with  whom  it  remained  a  practice  down  to  the 
epoch  of  their  discovery,  Punaluan  marriage  is  now  un- 
known among  them,  but  the  system  of  consanguinity  it 
created  has  survived  the  customs  in  which  it  originated. 
The  plan  of  family  life  and  of  habitation  among  savage 
tribes  has  been  imperfectly  studied.  A  knowledge  of  their 
usages  in  these  respects  and  of  their  mode  of  subsistence 
would  throw  a  strong  light  upon  the  questions  under  con- 
sideration. 

Two  forms  of  the  family  have  now  been  explained  in  their 
origin  by  two  parallel  systems  of  consanguinity.  The 
proofs  seem  to  be  conclusive.  It  gives  the  starting  point 
of  human  society  after  mankind  had  emerged  from  a  still 
lower  condition  and  entered  the  organism  of  the  consan- 
guine family.  [From  this  first  form  to  the  second  the 
transition  was  natural  ;  a  development  from  a  lower  into  a 
higher  social  condition  through  observation  and  experience. ^ 
It  was  a  result  of  the  improvable  mental  and  moral  qualities 
which  belong  to  the  human  species.  The  consanguine  and 
punaluan  families  represent  the  substance  of  human  pro- 
gress through  the  greater  part  of  the  period  of  savagery. 
Although  the  second  was  a  great  improvement  upon  the 
first,  it  was  still  very  distant  from  the  monogamian.  An 
impression  may  be  formed  by  a  comparison  of  the  several 
forms  of  the  family,  of  the  slow  rate  of  progress  in  savagery, 
where  the  means  of  advancement  were  slight,  and  the  ob- 
stacles were  formidable.  Ages  upon  ages  of  substantially 
stationary  life,  with  advanceand  decline,  undoubtedly  marked 
the  course  of  events  ;  but  the  general  movement  of  society 
was  from  a  lower  to  a  higher  condition,  otherwise  mankind 
would  have  remained  in  savagery.  It  is  something  to  find 
an  assured  initial  point  from  which  mankind  started  on 
their  great  and  marvelous  career  of  progress,  even  though 
so  near  the  bottom  of  the  scale,  and  though  limited  to  a 
form  of  the  family  so  peculiar  as  the  consanguine. 


THE  PUNAL  UAN  FAMIL  V. 


447 


5     —  ot:  o 


:<i5  £ 


C  k,         ii    S -r1    ^    C    5    ^_Q"!^    ^  ^- 

•P.-  -a-    S  G'S  I  g  S  u  S-a:  -a:  2=    o      S.'S 


■2  E  _ 
■5-5-o-a 
c  c  c 
rt  rt  rt 


ca 


f,:  ■a: 


=  3 
o  rt  rt  o  ■-  '-■3:    oj  «•-  o 

to-a-oSuiMN         COCtn 


M  O    « 
_    3    t/;  IJ 

■atj  2  2 
5  5  M)  w) 


■a -a  >n 

-3-0  -  _  D. 
•rt  '"5        ^         D* 

a  ai2  -^  S  ;s  >« 
"  - -c  ~  -O  'O  V 
c  6  D.  a  a  a,i! 


^ '«    ■^" .,  !3    -a    S       .v-v  <s    - 


s 

._  -rt 


St^Sc 


£  (la.i; 


oSS^mSSESo.  a.ti      E  S  E  E 


O.O. 

6  Fi 

c 

s 

■u-o 

c  a 

0.0. 

V  V  V 

2gS2S2S2  22 


Ml       ho 

c  3  c  2 


c  c  c 


c^pCrtrtrtrt0.j^qjC2rtrt 


is  o  rt  o  nl 

,    C  T3  -O'U-O 

c  c 


■f  o  i^'  o  'f  o  •=  u  i  i  irt  .^«  Trt  ."rt  in  Tn  v  o  "Si'Si:" 
"b  •?  -o  "C'  -o  "^^  J?  >■  n  «  ><  >>  >^  >^  >>  ^■■^■.7'.,' ^'  ^ 
c\)0"uo"birtO"rtonn!rtrtnrt-rti:"n"nn 
j:  cj=  ox:  cj=  cj=..:^j:.^^j!.nj:j=  rtJ=.i:-o 


g     =Srtrtd«g 

c  <J 

rt  o  ol  rt  rt3" 

>rt   rt  :rt  :rt  :^  '-^ 

«'l''rtc>-><>^>'>>1' 

>>  c  ;».>>>.  ?^ 

mrinvcici^ci  a  ir: 

rt  o  rt  rt  rt  rt 

j:^^  oj=^x:^j=^^  oj=^j::.i! 


M 


^  E 


C   3 


n  rt-£ 
So  Mi2 


y '  c  c  c 
.  I.  c  :;  rt  n  rt 


a>  o  rt 

t;  (A  '^ 

M  c   C 

"  rt  rt 

ci  u   u 

•3  M  fcJO 


.«' 


x:  J= 
.«  t/j  M  j;  c  rt  n 


■£  2-S'« 


•OT3  w  wi  Ei  uj 


be  bjo 
„   „  3 


^  C  2 

iPc  a 

C  =  rt  rt 
°-6tt)So 

c  C  rt  rt 


Ml       &  M<S  E  S  -S  & 


M)  bo  M)  t 


;-  ^  !"■=  - 


«    u . 


M  N  m  •*  m»o  tvto  ON  o  M 


i  ^  xnvo   r--CX3   On  O   w    W    fO  ..J-  irwo   t^co    On  O 


m  ..*■  m^o  rvoo 


eswwNNCiNwwwmcofororocnfomn^ 


448 


ANCIENT  SOCIETY. 


.c>'  S 


o  c  C-  2  u  Q.  c 


"  ^2  o  o—  O  V.  o  u  «•-  5J  o 


„  o.S 


C-O  W)  M  rt  3 


1-3    =    0         Oo'S 


^^ 


>rt    •  >rt    .         •  Q.  £ 

)rt  )rt  >rt  )rt  ,53  <a3  rt 

SEES  aa.is 


S^ra 


E  a  ( 


I.  >,  B  f:  « -:5  c  >n 
.J! -£'5  3  S-«i5  E 


=  -  E  S  c  S-j 


•.a 

5  -n  y 


E  E  S  S  S 


2  E  S  §• 


«  5- 


M       bfl     .-        ■»        hjo       bo 

c  c   C   c        M  bC-7  c  c  c  c  " 
rt    r;   rt   rt'^ 


bio  M  taO  bJO  ui  -d -a 


s  s  ;:  i:  i:  >;  -J      uji  o  '"S 


«j-5i'2'2 


:-ocnif.  cT3Mib«rt 


> 

^         -? 


3  ♦;  3  3  o 

O.^    O    o    »" 

u  in  u  u.a 


c  o  rt  rt  rt  rt  E 
^.  ^  T3  -o  -a  -a  ? 
-^  .,r -^ -:  ^:  .-: 


-----_rtclrtrtrtrtrtu 


1 
U    OJ    ^    C    u    V 


S   C   S   C  -5   S  '5:   i   n!   =<   =^   «    '     '  >    ■     • 

"b  u  *h„  «  u  'Si^K  i  o  i  o  >!<  i  "i^  i  ^rt  ^ts  =<  c  '«  >«  ii  >«  >«  ni 


^     -S- 


K-H 


"<> 


0)  o  rt 

bd  C   C 
C  2  rt  rt 


bi) 


h  e 


15  5' 


Ji    ^-^    C    3    ^    i 

, -  .     ..      ."^  be  b«  c  c  n  rt  ti 

)-OT3bCb«b«bocc33nrtii«jg 

S  w  TJ  T3  &  M  M  bio-^ 


«   :     oj  « 


nvo   t^oo   0\  O 


a  o:    rt     2 


^  >/:   bO"     b«.i 


3  c :  ;  :    3 


\D  r^oo  ov  o 


«  r^  '■^  v>vo  tvoo  ON  o 


I  -ff  irt^O   t-^oo   o\  O 


m  >/^^  v^v^NOvOvONO^NO^O    t>.t^hNt^t^t^t^t^t^  t^oO 


THE  PUN  ALU  AN  FAMIL  V. 


449 


JJ 

.S          a 

£ 

J3 

■_— 

0          = 

u  0 

-    »j  2  S      tS  > 

~ 

Ui 

)m 

c  2 

.2                     0 

3   =   S» 

■S-^iS'^i 

a 

JT  c  S  -  c  ci. 

bJ3  ^ 

„        S        Soc        °E        ,J        g|„ 

S  Sj  E-^  oj  3      s  ii      fe 

?  rt " 

una:    g=j^o.e52cD.=  u 

rt   rt   0 

i!  0--  n  o  u 

c  3  0      00      Js  n  o-S  n  S  u  rt.- 

&  ti  £ 

^  ^.  c-o  !«  c-o  c 

tijbosrto       >,o      t)Ci7ic-aiCT3c 

>2  "3  >.  1/1  u  ?^xi  ui  q  -o  c  c  ui 

>>---■- 

»    - 

-   -  ^ 

-    -    « 

S'  "  "  "  " 

■  .15  ■■.">.■.■.■ . 

'b 

H 
c 

>; 

!.    & 

,|-  !§•  •  •  • 
^rt  "i^a  .  •  . 

>3      x5         • « 

•         •         .£••■■ 

rt 

"   C       _              C       _H 

■■i 

IS 

•  3 

r"  rt     •       '7'  ^  >rt       >rt         •  >rt     •  >rt 
>«  >rt       ._:rt  d-^       -^            -^       -^ 

^^r 

3    ,   •       ■"  -f;  r-      >rt      )rt  >rt 

id    c                   -^3         J^          V    ^ 

o.>p      •gja.^'g      S      >rt^ 

■^    -^        -^ 

^ 

C 

'2     '2         '2 

c  ^       c  i  ^-'  '^      '^          *2      *^ 

_'rt  - 

o 

£  c  i=_  c  P 

c 

rt  >ci  xri  id  c  ><::  ><:C  S:trt  >n  >rt  >ci  -rt  >rt  )rt  >rt 

—       3rt  ^-^ 

_M 

'S3'g:53'2 

■rt  >5 

rt  w 

S  '5  .b.>.:3  'rt  :§  .§  -« '&:?  !2  >g  :g  '=  '5  !3 

»«  >rt  )rt  )«  >rt  ir; 

.rt  .rt 

o,'a 

.^  3  3  ,K  -f;  3  .rt  .rt  >rt  )rt  >rt  )rt  >rt 

i3>BSE7^-£ESSEgEB 

P5 

SEBSESEE 

ESEE'SgErtSEEEESEE 

o.'cx'p.'J 

w 

i- 

t- 

.      S 

u 
V 

S3  0  ^      2j    •       •       • 
tJ-S-^  rt  o':^  c 

^-^  w-7  "■•  biS     5.S     5 

Ah   =   uS")3-S       J3bJ04)j3 

C 

c 
rt 

■^1       S 

rt 

c-6 

tJO 

11 

.-£.-?     ..s  .    s- 

i  "-S-s;  S'S-5-5      J=bc«j5       fJ  b* 

^i-. 

'■  q-o  c  c  S 

S"  ■•  -  -  - 

rtrtUC33^3so  =  S-=uae52 
tibbi  rt  8  S-K  8  S-S  g  c-g'S  g  g'S-o 

rt  rt  0 
oJD  bo  S 

w  «  ..».  I/:  u  >>j2  w  c  -a  q  c  w 

C3   <£ 

J2 

J2 

Cm 

rt 

S  J?  S  "r  s  5 

5-^ 

rt                  .         .       rt       rt 

•         .  rt    ,         ,         ,         .  rt    . 

"i  % 

rt  rt 
-a-a 

5^  J\    '•    '^  %.    ■?    '-f          3    ^   3    ^  :rt    3  :rt    3 

rt  rt 

■u-a- 

V  c 

^■^^■^■«^ 

«i 

:rt  Tt^ 

o  V  C.  ^  V  t:  i:  ^'  ^'  >  ^'  j:  ^'  >'  ^'  ^' 

3  >rt -rt  )rt  I)  >rt  .rt  .«  ^  "3  j:  -3  ,rt  j=  )rt  X 

:rt  -.rt    U 

rt  i«  rt  (/]   >^  rt 

i*^  rt 

>.  >> 

^1,  tJUJimbubetJi^a  S  «  S  ;^rt  ^n 

?■>>.>. 

.-i  rt  rt  rt  rt  rf 

rt   rt 

rt  n 

o  ji  j=  i  ji  ji  ji  rtrtrtrtrtrtrtrtcii 

rt  n  6 

0  Trt  "rt  j:  i  "rt  «  a  a  «  a  rt  n! 

_c  ji:  ji;  _i^  X  -c 

-^^ 

j:  Ji 

-C  n  a  rt  rt  rt  rt^Xx:-i!^^j=^^j:_i:  c 

j=a:j=  c3  rt^  X  j:^^^  j=  j3 

^_____ 

s?       ^       "*« 
'•3.      ^.     '^^  -»>,-, 

"^  -   -   ;;   2   ;: 

;  : 

i 
-^  "^  ^ 

■§•>■§< 

s         s        ■§■ 

"a 

■^         -5;    "     <;     -5;     -Si     .Ji 

^^     -^^         ^     .^     ^ 

-i  1-5:  S.^  2 

»,"« 

•5;  S      .J;  S      .5;  S-^  S-Ji  2-5;  S 

^  '^     ^  >-     .5!  2.:^  2.^  2 
■     ^        ^■2?«?'=? 

^ 

-o                    s 

-S-3    ^  ^ 

c                                -^ 

c 

u 

rt                           ^ 

-£3 

•d 

o 

-Q                              be- 

b^ 

a 

u        C  . 

3 
rt 
•^3 

j: 

M 

11 

1            S       §=| 

11 

■v-a   • 

« 

o 

■^^    1 

-o-a 

•  ^  oj       w  5 :;    ri       CJ 

S  2 

</i            bJJ-    ui 

-    , 

c  a 

a  a 

be  St 

rt   rt 

.  .,         ."  be-    tey               be"  "  - 
<JJc       c3=3::3:3 
'So-ort       «o              « 
?  V.       tfl  TJ      ^  en               13 

W)  bO 
K  rt     ■ 
bJD  b£ 

^           "itji       iio-.S       S 
^          .^  M-    be.«      _       -bb- 

ooC         c3         3c:SS3 

o 

U    JJ 

30-ort       rto                 ^ 

s 

!"""•§ 

Shu 

i-'tl 

^  </i      w-o     -o  «           -a 

0 

^^«>.-«s..--«*^.                  V                  «^ 

.* 

m 

S  2 

"    "     fe 

"^ 

•3 

ij3 

•w 

■5 

'Z 

■B~  ^  '  -  -  ~  '  '  -  ~  ^  ~  ~  '  z 

5    r    -^ 

0' 

"    "     0 

t5 

E 

E 

>..,... 

-       « 

s.           >. 

.,.-.< 

§ 

"*       " 

"  " 

*    ■"    " 

M    N    ro  -^  ii-)vi: 

tv-OC 

ChO 

M    w    ro  -^  lO^O    t^co    Cn  0    H    «    CO  -1-  VD^ 

t-^co    0^ 

0  M   N  m  -^  ino  t^co  o\  0  M  c* 

00  CO  CO  CO  CO  cc 

cococo    O^O^O^O^a^C^O^O^C^O^O    O    0    0    0    0    0 

0    0    0 

29 


450 


ANCIENT  SOCIETY. 


THE  PUN  ALU  AN  FA  MIL  Y. 


451 


—   u  bi) 
I.  "  c 

o.t;  3 


-  .,  rt  ° 

°  S  ^  S"  " 


bt.rt  u 
u      -a  S 


M"^  M^  S  si's  wiS-3'c  bb^  m3  8  C  M 
2-  =  =  -•---  =  ■ 


e  -a  i^  2  3  « 


•a  Mj=  ^ 


^^ 

5  S'- 

tj) 

f=^ 

c 

3 

.S-S 

71  S  i 

0 

S  u  u 

ii-o 

='S'2i-s 

be  tT 

C    3'o 

^1^3 

Sg-S.|= 

Oi5   ^ 

^6- 


■  ='H 


^^^  xS 


C  c-a'Sd 
Q..i:  o.'i3  S 

W"  -  -  - 


■■-5-a72>3       ':§  o 

XTl   rt  T3     --3       x^  *■     .       .S 

p.  .  g.o'rf     p.a,  •  c^ 

,5  -a  T3  -  )«  >3  2  -a  -a  c  "  >g  5  ^  -o  — «  '3  t!  «  =  S 
'S..2  'a-i3  'S  E  'S_2  ■«  g  g  g  '^..^  'g.-«  :^  6  aS  S  E 


,£1  rt 

.-'Is 

E  E  E 


5  S  -2.  =  a 

3  )3  ^>3  >rt 


c  S  -y  e  « 


>S  1  E  §^-«  E  e  ^  s  2 


MS  s 

5  =  c  S 


Coo 


j:  u 


•  i   .  =-£-5   .       •  c  o  o   -^ 
S  S  E  ^-3      •Sv^.S       ^       g  S  S  ^-3 

2  S  S  o2.3i  SS2cg|SS2  °2.ii  «  =•? 


B-O 


c^ 


c-TiS  "•£  o  e  2 


■j=,i3  E 
'  a.  a  c 


.  c 


-a  i: 


D    1) 


^      ^ 


S   <2  -.'.  -.'.  :« 


U    V 


« 


c  a 

:rt   <f    ^"p^  :«    O   O 

rt  o  o  Tr;  r:  rt  "b  "b  oi  rt  rt  o  o  oji         -   _   _    _  ^^         ------__,  _    -    - 

^jij^jzjz^  o  o  c  n^j=^j:j=  r;^j=  o  o  c  n^^-a-ux  o  o  o  a^j:  oj=^ 


V  o  = 


o  o  o  s;  .,■  J  ii 


^'  i;  S!  j3     .,'  ^'  j<!  ^  ^'  «,,■  ^1  ^' 

rtOOuu>rt:rt«rtrt  btl>j  «  b 
J.^.~.    ^^   rt    «    rt    rl:-^    -    ■'■    •'■    -'■ 


rt  o 


o  o 

c  a 

"rt  ■« 


■r     J  a 

•J.       j;  o 

o-^  o  cj-a 

Si  1;  >rt  "u  -jj 
>,  M  >,  Mm 
n  ji  rt  J3  o 

X  rtx:  rt  c 


•:^? 


^  S_o 


bo 


■^  —  -o 

5  2  .^   3 
M 


■  ^ 


•s  r'  o 


&>^   M 


2           —  S 

0 

15       cg"= 

.  J-  .     a;  -n 

at-gre 

er.   . 

er's  so 
son's 
"    so 

- 

3  il  3-  5 

n  j:  rt 

■a   bCT3 

"•5-S 

,    u-a 

^   ^ 

- 

-  J2,  ,  ,  , 

-"iS 

g5  :  : 


^ 

s 

3S  S 

rt  i!." 
•OJ3  3 

3 

n 
-a 

M  rt 

- 

' 

• 

- 

^ 

a 

•0- 

z 

; 

j: 

3 

•  :: 

- 

~ 

^ 

0 

^ 

-         s. 

„ 

^ 

• 

h 

' 

"   ' 

■• 

" 

!-^  -1 


•s  o 

<£  E 


•     • 

• 

•       • 

• 

."  s" 

. 

. 

S   0, 

^•3 

§\ 

u 

If 

rt 

•£  0 

I, 

L4 

5 

•^  e 

Sxl 

C    .     ^ 

u 

•  rt::  s 

3      « 

Ul 

-f;  n 

§';i^  M 

M-S 

U.S 

sbanc 

fe 

sbanc 

>2  E 

^ii-S  0 

c  2  0 

0  rt  k- 

(^  - 

c  ™s- 

0  "  " 

V      >• 

i'?^ 

S 

s-s^ 

-     - 

- 

^ 

s 


O  rvoo  o  O 


TO    t^OO    O  O 


1  -i-  irivo    t^OO    O  O 


O^C^C^O\O^C^a^O^O^C^O    O    O    O    O    O    O    0 


452 


ANCIENT  SOCIETY. 


C   c! 

3    3: 

7   ?   « 

S 

0   0 

0   0 

o 

c«r>l 

rt 

S  is 

•i 

rt  rt 

c  c 

s 

,^ 

H 

-""  si 

-°'S 

0 

.s 

>, 

,.    "O 

S- 

s 

S 
a 

H 

c 

9 

>,  >. 

>, 

>3 

)rt 

a 

>3  )3 

60 

c 

a 

•,B-a 

^ 

_  0 

•  E  S 

w 

-  >>§ 

-c 

.2 

d   C 
0^ 

c  -2.-2. 

III 

rt 

^.^ 

C  rt  rt 

o'213 

^ 

w 

"    "    ■* 

"  "  " 

M 

^ 

, 

o 

rt 

2    5   « 

rt 

c 

S 

tL 

.    -    , 

V^ 

^  ^  « 

o  o  a 


=         «    3   3.^.^3 

i  „i.2.2  S  Sx. 

^.KwJi'H   3   3   W> 
i!    rt^    rt   C   3   MIJ  J 


■5  .  >^  I  --         • 

;?  !^  j;  V"  g'-ti  ^    • 

^_^<:; -5 -^j  <;  3         , 
^3  V 

^'Z  ^  ^ « 

O*^-    «    "    -    2    T3t3'3 
0\  O    H    N    f*^  ■*  »0^0    (^CO 

ONNcinctnciNn 


CHAPTER  IV. 

THE   SYNDYASMIAN   AND   THE   PATRIARCHAL   FAMILIES. 

The  Syndyasmian  Family. — How  Constituted. — Its  Characteristics. 
— Influence  upon  it  of  the  Gentile  Organization. — Propensity  to 
Pair  a  late  Development. — Ancient  Society  should  be  studied  where 
the  highest  Exemplifications  are  found. — The  Patriarchal  Family. — 
Paternal  Power  its  Essential  Characteristic. — Polygamy  subordi- 
nate.— The  Roman  Family  similar. — Paternal  Power  unknown  in 
previous  Families. 

When  the  American  aborigines  were  discovered,  that  por- 
tion of  them  who  were  in  the  Lower  Status  of  barbarism, 
had  attained  to  the  syndyasmian  or  pairing  family.  The 
large  groups  in  the  marriage  relation,  which  must  have 
existed  in  the  previous  period,  had  disappeared ;  and  in 
their  places  were  married  pairs,  forming  clearly  marked, 
though  but  partially  individualized  families.  In  this  family, 
may  be  recognized  the  germ  of  the  monogamian,  but  it  was 
below  the  latter  in  several  essential  particulars. 

The  syndyasmian  family  was  special  and  peculiar.  Sev- 
eral of  them  were  usually  found  in  one  house,  forming  a 
communal  household,  in  which  the  principle  of  communism 
in  living  was  practiced.  The  fact  of  the  conjunction  of 
several  such  families  in  a  common  household  is  of  itself  an 
admission  that  the  family  was  too  feeble  an  organization 
to  face  alone  the  hardships  of  life.  Nevertheless  it  was 
founded  upon  marriage  between  single  pairs,  and  possessed 
some  of  the  characteristics  of  the  monogamian  .family. 
The  woman  was  now  something  more  than   the  principal 


454 


ANCIENT  SOCIETY. 


wife  of  her  husband ;  she  was  his  companion,  the  preparer 
of  his  food,  and  the  mother  of  children  whom  he  now 
began  with  some  assurance  to  regard  as  his  own.  The 
birth  of  children,  for  whom  they  jointly  cared,  tended  to 
cement  the  union  and  render  it  permanent. 

But  the  marriage  institution  was  as  peculiar  as  the  fam- 
ily. Men  did  not  seek  wives  as  they  are  sought  in  civil- 
ized society,  from  affection,  for  the  passion  of  love,  which 
required  a  higher  development  than  they  had  attained, 
was  unknown  among  them.  Marriage,  therefore,  was  not 
founded  upon  sentiment  but  upon  convenience  and  necessity. 
It  was  left  to  the  mothers,  in  effect,  to  arrange  the  mar- 
riages of  their  children,  and  they  were  negotiated  generally^ 
without  the  knowledge  of  the  parties  to  be  married,  and 
without  asking  their  previous  consent.  It  sometimes  hap- 
pened that  entire  strangers  were  thus  brought  into  the 
marriage  relation.  At  the  proper  time  they  were  notified 
when  the  simple  nuptial  ceremony  would  be  performed. 
Such  were  the  usages  of  the  Iroquois  and  many  other 
Indian  tribes.  Acquiescence  in  these  maternal  contracts 
was  a  duty  which  the  parties  seldom  refused.  Prior  to  the 
marriage,  presents  to  the  gentile  relatives  of  the  bride, 
nearest  in  degree,  partaking  of  the  nature  of  purchasing 
gifts,  became  a  feature  in  these  matrimonial  transactions. 
The  relation,  however,  continued  during  the  pleasure  of 
the  parties,  and  no  longer.  It  is  for  this  reason  that  it  is 
properly  distinguished  as  the  pairing  family.  The  husband 
could  put  away  his  wife  at  pleasure  and  take  another  with- 
out offence,  and  the  woman  enjoyed  the  equal  right  of 
leaving  her  husband  and  accepting  another,  in  which  the 
usages  of  her  tribe  and  gens  were  not  infringed.  But  a 
public  sentiment  gradually  formed  and  grew  into  strength 
against  such  separations.  When  alienation  arose  between  a 
married  pair,  and  their  separation  became  imminent,  the 
gentile  kindred  of  each  attempted  a  reconciliation  of  the 
parties,  in  which  they  were  often  successful ;  but  if  they 
were  unable  to  remove  the  difficulty  their  separation  was 
approved.     The  wife  then  left  the  home  of  her  husband, 


SYND  YASMIAN  AND  PA  TRIARCHAL  FAMILIES.        45  5 

taking  with  her  their  children,  who  were  regarded  as  exclu- 
sively her  own,  and  her  personal  effects,  upon  which  her 
husband  had  no  claim  ;  or  where  the  wife's  kindred  pre- 
dominated in  the  communal  household,  which  was  usually 
the  case,  the  husband  left  the  home  of  his  wife.'  Thus 
the  continuance  of  the  marriage  relation  remained  at  the 
option  of  the  parties. 

There  was  another  feature  of  the  relation  which  shows 
that  the  American  aborigines  in  the  Lower  Status  of  barbar- 
ism had  not  attained  the  moral  development  implied  by 
monogamy.  Among  the  Iroquois,  who  were  barbarians  of 
high  mental  grade,  and  among  the  equally  advanced  Indian 
tribes  generally,  chastity  had  come  to  be  required  of  the 
wife  under  severe  penalties  which  the  husband  might  inflict ; 
but  he  did  not  admit  the  reciprocal  obligation.  The  one 
cannot  be  permanently  realized  without  the  other.  More- 
over, polygamy  was  universally  recognized  as  the  right  of 
the  males,  although  the  practice  was  limited  from  inability 
to  support  the  indulgence.  There  were  other  usages,  that 
need  not  be  mentioned,  tending  still  further  to  show  that 
they  were  below  a  conception  of  monogamy,  as  that  great 

'  The  late  Rev.  Ashur  Wright,  for  many  years  a  missionary  among  the  Sen- 
ecas,  wrote  the  author  in  1873  on  this  subject  as  follows  :  "  As  to  their  family 
systefti,  when  occupying  the  old  long-houses,  it  is  probable  that  some  one  clan 
predominated,  the  women  taking  in  husbands,  however,  from  the  other  clans  ; 
and  sometimes,  for  a  novelty,  some  of  their  sons  bringing  in  their  young  wives 
until  they  felt  brave  enough  to  leave  their  mothers.  Usually,  the  female  por- 
tion ruled  the  house,  and  were  doubtless  clannish  enough  about  it.  The  stores 
were  in  common  ;  but  woe  to  the  luckless  husband  or  lover  who  was  too  shift- 
less to  do  his  share  of  the  providing.  No  matter  how  many  children,  or  what- 
ever goods  he  might  have  in  the  house,  he  might  at  any  time  be  ordered  to  pick 
up  his  blanket  and  budge  ;  and  after  such  orders  it  would  not  be  healthful  for 
him  to  attempt  to  disobey.  The  house  would  be  too  hot  for  him  ;  and,  unless 
saved  by  the  intercession  of  some  aunt  or  grandmother,  he  must  retreat  to  his 
own  clan  ;  or,  as  was  often  done,  go  and  start  a  new  matrimonial  alliance  in 
some  other.  The  women  were  the  great  power  among  the  clans,  as  everywhere 
else.  They  did  not  hesitate,  when  occasion  required,  '  to  knock  off  the  horns,' 
as  it  was  technically  called,  from  the  head  of  a  chief,  and  send  him  back  to  the 
ranks  of  the  warriors.  The  original  nomination  of  the  chiefs  also  always  rested 
with  them."  These  statements  illustrate  the  gyneocracy  discussed  by  Bachofen 
in  "  Das  Mutterrecht." 


456 


ANCIENT  SOCIETY. 


institution  is  properly  defined.  Exceptional  cases  very- 
likely  existed.  It  will  be  found  equally  true,  as  I  believe, 
of  barbarous  tribes  in  general.  The  principal  feature  which 
distinguished  the  syndyasmian  from  the  monogamian  fami- 
ly, although  liable  to  numerous  exceptions,  was  the  absence 
of  an  exclusive  cohabitation.  The  old  conjugal  system,  a 
record  of  which  is  still  preserved  in  their  system  of  consan- 
guinity, undoubtedly  remained,  but  under  reduced  and 
restricted  forms. 

Among  the  Village  Indians  in  the  Middle  Status  of  bar- 
barism the  facts  were  not  essentially  different,  so  far  as  they 
can  be  said  to  be  known.  A  comparison  of  the  usages  of 
the  American  aborigines,  with  respect  to  marriage  and 
divorce,  shows  an  existing  similarity  sufficiently  strong  to 
imply  original  identity  of  usages.  A  few  only  can  be  no-» 
ticed.  Clavgero  remarks  that  among  the  Aztecs  "  the  pa- 
rents were  the  persons  who  settled  all  marriages,  and  none 
were  ever  executed  without  their  consent,"  '  "A  priest  tied 
a  point  of  the  Jmepilli,  or  gown  of  the  bride,  with  the  til- 
inatli,  or  mantle  of  the  bridegroom,  and  in  this  ceremony 
the  matrimonial  contract  chiefly  consisted."  "^  Herrera,  after 
speaking  of  the  same  ceremony,  observes  that  "  all  that  the 
bride  brought  was  kept  in  memory,  that  in  case  they  should 
be  unmarried  again,  as  was  usual  among  them,  the  goods 
might  be  parted  ;  the  man  taking  the  daughters,  and  the 
wife  the  sons,  with  liberty  to  marry  again."  ^ 

It  will  be  noticed  that  the  Aztec  Indian  did  not  seek  his 
wife  personally  any  more  than  the  Iroquois.  Among  both 
it  was  less  an  individual  than  a  public  or  gentile  affair,  and 
therefore  still  remained  under  parental  control  exclusively. 
There  was  very  little  social  intercourse  between  unmarried 
persons  of  the  two  sexes  in  Indian  life;  and  as  attachments 
were  not  contracted,  none  were  traversed  by  these  mar- 
riages, in  which  personal  wishes  were  unconsidered,  and  in 
fact  unimportant.  It  appears  further,  that  the  personal 
effects  of  the  wife  were  kept  distinct  among  the  Aztecs  as 

^  History  of  Mexico,  Phil,  ed.,  1S17,  Cullen's  trans.,  ii,  99.         "^  lb.,  ii,  lOl. 
'  History  of  Ameiica,  1.  c,  iii,  217. 


SYND  YASMIAAT  AND  PA  TRIARCHAL  FAMILIES.      457 

among  the  Iroquois,  that  in  case  of  separation,  which  was 
a  common  occurrence  as  this  writer  states,  she  might 
retain  them  in  accordance  with  general  Indian  usage. 
Finally,  while  among  the  Iroquois  in  the  case  of  divorce 
the  wife  took  all  the  children,  the  Aztec  husband  was 
entitled  to  the  daughters,  and  the  wife  to  the  sons ;  a  modi- 
fication of  the  ancient  usage  which  implies  a  prior  time 
when  the  Iroquois  Indian  rule  existed  among  the  ancestors 
of  the  Aztecs, 

Speaking  of  the  people  of  Yucatan  generally  Herrera 
further  remarks  that  "  formerly  they  were  wont  to  marry  at 
twenty  years  of  age,  and  afterwards  came  to  twelve  or  four- 
teen, and  having  no  affection  for  their  wives  were  divorced 
for  every  trifle."  '  The  Mayas  of  Yucatan  were  superior  to 
the  Aztecs  in  culture  and  development  ;  but  where  mar- 
riages were  regulated  on  the  principle  of  necessity,  and  not 
through  personal  choice,  it  is  not  surprising  that  the  rela- 
tion was  unstable,  and  that  separation  was  at  the  option  of 
either  party.  Moreover,  polygamy  was  a  recognized  right 
of  the  males  among  the  Village  Indians,  and  seems  to  have 
been  more  generally  practiced  than  among  the  less  ad- 
vanced tribes.  These  glimpses  at  institutions  purely  Indian 
as  well  as  barbarian  reveal  in  a  forcible  manner  the  actual 
condition  of  the  aborigines  in  relative  advancement.  In  a 
matter  so  personal  as  the  marriage  relation,  the  wishes  or 
preferences  of  the  parties  were  not  consulted.  No  better 
evidence  is  needed  of  the  barbarism  of  the  people. 

We  are  next  to  notice  some  of  the  influences  which  de- 
veloped this  family  from  the  punaluan.  In  the  latter  there 
was  more  or  less  of  pairing  from  the  necessities  of  the  social 
state,  each  man  having  a  principal  wife  among  a  number  of 
wives,  and  each  woman  a  principal  husband  among  a  num- 
ber of  husbands  ;  so  that  the  tendency  in  the  punaluan 
family,  from  the  first,  was  in  the  direction  of  the  syndyas- 
mian. 

The  organization  into  gentes  was  the  principal  instru- 
mentality that  accomplished  this  result ;  but  through  long 

'  History  of  America.,  iv,   171. 


458  ANCIENT  SOCIETY. 

and  gradual  processes.  Firstly.  It  did  not  at  once  break 
up  intermarriage  in  the  group,  which  it  found  established 
by  custom  ;  but  the  prohibition  of  intermarriage  in  the 
gens  excluded  own  brothers  and  sisters,  and  also  the  chil- 
dren of  own  sisters,  since  all  of  these  were  of  the  same 
gens.  Own  brothers  could  still  share  their  wives  in  com- 
mon, and  own  sisters  their  husbands;  consequently  the 
gens  did  not  interfere  directly  with  punaluan  marriage, 
except  to  narrow  its  range.  But  it  withheld  permanently 
from  that  relation  all  the  descendants  in  the  female  line  of 
each  ancestor  within  the  gens,  which  was  a  great  innova- 
tion upon  the  previous  punaluan  group.  When  the  gens 
subdivided,  the  prohibition  followed  its  branches,  for  long 
periods  of  time,  as  has  been  shown  was  the  case  among  the 
Iroquois.  Secondly.  The  structure  and  principles  of  the 
organization  tended  to  create  a  prejudice  against  the  mar- 
riage of  consanguinei,  as  the  advantages  of  marriages  be- 
tween unrelated  persons  were  gradually  discovered  through 
the  practice  of  marrying  out  of  the  gens.  This  seems 
to  have  grown  apace  until  a  public  sentiment  was  finally 
arrayed  against  it  which  had  become  very  general  among 
the  American  aborigines  when  discovered.*  For  example, 
among  the  Iroquois  none  of  the  blood  relatives  enumer- 
ated in  the  Table  of  Consanguinity  were  marriageable. 
Since  it  became  necessary  to  seek  wives  from  other  gentes 
they  began  to  be  acquired  by  negotiation  and  by  purchase. 
The  gentile  organization  must  have  led,  step  by  step, 
as  its  influence  became  general,  to  a  scarcity  of  wives 
in  place  of  their  previous  abundance ;  and  as  a  conse- 
quence, have  gradually  contracted  the  numbers  in  the 
punaluan  group.  This  conclusion  is  reasonable,  because 
there  are  sufficient  grounds  for  assuming  the  existence  of 
such  groups  when  the  Turanian  system  of  consanguinity 
was  formed.    They  have  now  disappeared  although  the  sys- 

'  A  case  among  the  Shyans  was  mentioned  to  the  author,  by  one  of  their 
chiefs,  where  first  cousins  had  married  ai^ainst  their  usages  There  was  no 
penahy  for  the  act ;  but  they  were  ridiculed  so  constantly  by  their  associates 
that  they  voluntarily  separated  rather  than  face  the  prejudice. 


Sy.Vn  YASMIAN  AND  PA  TRIARCHAL  FAMILIES.       459 

tern  remains.  These  groups  must  have  gradually  declined, 
and  finally  disappeared  with  the  general  establishment  of 
the  syndyasmian  family.  Fourthly.  In  seeking  wives,  they 
did  not  confine  themselves  to  their  own,  nor  even  to 
friendly  tribes,  but  captured  them  by  force  from  hostile 
tribes.  It  furnishes  a  reason  for  the  Indian  usage  of  spar- 
ing the  lives  of  female  captives,  while  the  males  were  put  to 
death.  When  wives  came  to  be  acquired  by  purchase  and. 
by  capture,  and  more  and  more  by  effort  and  sacrifice,  they 
would  not  be  as  readily  shared  with  others.  It  would  tend, 
at  least,  to  cut  off  that  portion  of  the  theoretical  group  not 
immediately  associated  for  subsistence ;  and  thus  reduce 
still  more  the  size  of  the  family  and  the  range  of  the  conju- 
gal system.  Practically,  the  group  would  tend  to  limit 
itself,  from  the  first,  to  own  brothers  who  shared  their 
wives  in  common,  and  to  own  sisters  who  shared  their  hus- 
bands in  common.  Lastly.  The  gentes  created  a  higher 
organic  structure  of  society  than  had  before  been  known, 
with  processes  of  development  as  a  social  system  adequate 
to  the  wants  of  mankind  until  civilization  supervened.  With 
the  progress  of  society  under  the  gentes,  the  way  was  pre- 
pared for  the  appearance  of  the  syndyasmian  family. 

The  influence  of  the  new  practice,  which  brought  unre-1 
lated  persons  into  the  marriage  relation,  must  have  given  1 
a  remarkable  impulse  to  society.  It  tended  to  create  a  more 
vigorous  stock  physically  and  mentally.  There  is  a  gain  by 
accretion  in  the  coalescence  of  diverse  stocks  which  has 
exercised  great  influence  upon  human  development.  When 
two  advancing  tribes,  with  strong  mental  and  physical  char- 
acters, are  brought  together  and  blended  into  one  people 
by  the  accidents  of  barbarous  life,  the  new  skull  and  brain 
would  widen  and  lengthen  to  the  sum  of  the  capabilities  of 
both.  Such  a  stock  would  be  an  improvement  upon  both, 
and  this  superiority  would  assert  itself  in  an  increase  of 
intelligence  and  of  numbers. 

It  follows  that  the  propensity  to  pair,  now  so  powerfully 
developed  in  the  civilized  races,  had  remained  unformed  in 
the  human  mind  until  the  punaluan  custom  began   to  dis- 


460 


ANCIENT  SOCIETY. 


appear.  Exceptional  cases  undoubtedly  occurred  where 
usages  would  permit  the  privilege  ;  but  it  failed  to  become 
general  until  the  syndyasmian  family  appeared.  This  pro- 
pensity, therefore,  cannot  be  called  normal  to  mankind,  but 
is,  rather,  a  growth  through  experience,  like  all  the  great 
passions  and  powers  of  the  mind. 

Another  influence  may  be  adverted  to  which  tended  to 
retard  the  growth  of  this  family.  Warfare  among  barba- 
rians is  more  destructive  of  life  than  among  savages,  from 
improved  weapons  and  stronger  incentives.  The  males,  in 
all  periods  and  conditions  of  society,  have  assumed  the 
trade  of  fighting,  which  tended  to  change  the  balance  of  the 
sexes,  and  leave  the  females  in  excess.  This  would  mani- 
festly tend  to  strengthen  the  conjugal  system  created  by 
marriages  in  the  group.  It  would,  also,  retard  the  advance- 
ment of  the  syndyasmian  family  by  maintaining  sentiments 
of  low  grade  with  respect  to  the  relations  of  the  sexes,  and 
the  character  and  dignity  of  woman. 

On  the  other  hand,  improvement  in  subsistence,  which 
followed  the  cultivation  of  maize  and  plants  among  the 
American  aborigines,  must  have  favored  the  general  ad- 
vancement of  the  family.  It  led  to  localization,  to  the  use 
of  additional  arts,  to  an  improved  house  architecture,  and  to 
a  more  intelligent  life.  Industry  and  frugality,  though  lim- 
ited in  degree,  with  increased  protection  of  life,  must  have 
accompanied  the  formation  of  families  consisting  of  single 
pairs.  The  more  these  advantages  were  realized,  the  more 
stable  such  a  family  would  become,  and  the  more  its  in- 
dividuality would  increase.  Having  taken  refuge  in  a 
communal  household,  in  which  a  group  of  such  families 
succeeded  the  punaluan  group,  it  now  drew  its  support 
from  itself,  from  the  household,  and  from  the  gentes  to 
which  the  husbands  and  wives  respectively  belonged.  The 
great  advancement  of  society  indicated  by  the  transition 
from  savagery  into  the  Lower  Status  of  barbarism,  would 
carry  with  it  a  corresponding  improvement  in  the  condition 
of  the  family,  the  course  of  development  of  which  was 
steadily  upward  to  the  monogamian.     If  the  existence  of 


SYNDYASMIAN  AND  PATRIARCHAL  FAMILIES.       461 

the  syndyasmian  family  were  unknown,  given  the  punaluan 
toward  one  extreme,  and  the  monogamian  on  the  other, 
the  occurrence  of  such  an  intermediate  form  might  have 
been  predicted.  It  has  had  a  long  duration  in  human  ex- 
perience. Springing  up  on  the  confines  of  savagery  and 
barbarism,  it  traversed  the  Middle  and  the  greater  part  of 
the  Later  Period  of  barbarism,  when  it  was  superseded  by 
a  low  form  of  the  monogamian.  Overshadowed  by  the  con- 
jugal system  of  the  times,  it  gained  in  recognition  with  the 
gradual  progress  of  society.  [The  selfishness  of  mankind, 
as  distinguished  from  womankind,  delayed  the  realization 
of  strict  monogamy  until  that  great  fermentation  of  the 
human  mind  which  ushered  in  civilization.] 

Two  forms  of  the  family  had  appeared  before  the  syndy- 
asmian and  created  two  great  systems  of  consanguinity,  or 
rather  two  distinct  forms  of  the  same  system;  but  this  third 
family  neither  produced  a  new  system  nor  sensibly  modified 
the  old.  Certain  marriage  relationships  appear  to  have 
been  changed  to  accord  with  those  in  the  new  family  ;  but 
the  essential  features  of  the  system  remained  unchanged. 
In  fact,  the  syndyasmian  family  continued  for  an  unknown 
period  of  time  enveloped  in  a  system  of  consanguinity, 
false  in  the  main,  to  existing  relationships,  and  which  it 
had  no  power  to  break.  It  was  for  the  sufficient  reason 
that  it  fell  short  of  monogamy,  the  coming  power  able  to 
dissolve  the  fabric.  Although  this  family  has  no  distinct 
system  of  consanguinity  to  prove  its  existence,  like  its  pre- 
decessors, it  has  itself  existed  over  large  portions  of  the 
earth  within  the  historical  period,  and  still  exists  in  numer- 
ous barbarous  tribes. 

In  speaking  thus  positively  of  the  several  forms  of  the 
family  in  their  relative  order,  there  is  danger  of  being  mis- 
understood. I  do  not  mean  to  imply  that  one  form  rises 
complete  in  a  certain  status  of  society,  flourishes  univer- 
sally and  exclusively  wherever  tribes  of  mankind  are  found 
in  the  same  status,  and  then  disappears  in  another,  which 
is  the  next  higher  form.  Exceptional  cases  of  the  puna- 
luan  family   may  have  appeared   in  the    consanguine,  and 


462  ANCIENT  SOCIETY. 

•vice  versa  ;  exceptional  cases  of  the  syndyasmian  may  have 
appeared  in  the  midst  of  the  punaluan,  and  vice  versa  ;  and 
exceptional  cases  of  the  monogamian  in  the  midst  of  the 
syndyasmian,  and  vice  versa.  Even  exceptional  cases  of 
the  monogamian  may  have  appeared  as  low  down  as  the 
punaluan,  and  of  the  syndyasmian  as  low  down  as  the  con- 
sanguine. Moreover,  some  tribes  attained  to  a  particular 
form  earlier  than  other  tribes  more  advanced  ;  for  example, 
the  Iroquois  had  the  syndyasmian  family  while  in  the  Lower 
Status  of  barbarism,  but  the  Britons,  who  were  in  the  Mid- 
dle Status,  still  had  the  punaluan.  The  high  civilization 
on  the  shores  of  the  Mediterranean  had  propagated  arts  and 
inventions  into  Britain  far  beyond  the  mental  development 
of  its  Celtic  inhabitants,  and  which  they  had  imperfectly 
appropriated.  They  seem  to  have  been  savages  in  their 
brains,  while  wearing  the  art  apparel  of  more  advanced  tribes. 
That  which  I  have  endeavored  to  substantiate,  and  for  which 
the  proofs  seem  to  be  adequate,  is,  that  the  family  began 
in  the  consanguine,  low  down  in  savagery,  and  grew,  by 
progressive  development,  into  the  monogamian,  through 
two  well-marked  intermediate  forms.  Each  was  partial  in 
its  introduction,  then  general,  and  finally  universal  over 
large  areas  ;  after  which  it  shaded  off  into  the  next  succeed- 
ing form,  which,  in  turn,  was  at  first  partial,  then  general, 
and  finally  universal  in  the  same  areas.  In  the  evolution 
of  these  successive  forms  the  main  direction  of  progress 
was  from  the  consanguine  to  the  monogamian.  With  dexia_-. 
tions  from  uniformity  in  the  progress  oF  malTToh^  through 
these  several  forms,  it  will  generally  be  found  that  the  con- 
sanguine and  punaluan  families  belong  to  the  status  of  sav- 
agery— the  former  to  its  lowest,  and  the  latter  to  its  highest 
condition — while  the  punaluan  continued  into  the  Lower 
Status  of  barbarism;  that  the  syndyasmian  belongs  to  the 
Lower  and  to  the  Middle  Status  of  barbarism,  and  continued 
into  the  Upper  ;  and  that  the  monogamian  belongs  to  the 
Upper  Status  of  barbarism,  and  continued  to  the  period  of 
civilization. 

It  will  not  be  necessary,  even  if  space  permitted,  to  trace 


SYNDYASMIAN  AND  PATRIARCHAL  FAMILIES.       463 

the  syndyasmian  family  through  barbarous  tribes  in  gene- 
ral upon  the  partial  descriptions  of  travelers  and  observers. 
The  tests  given  may  be  applied  by  each  reader  to  cases  with- 
in his  information.  Among  the  American  aborigines  in 
the  Lower  Status  of  barbarism  it,  was  the  prevailing  form 
of  the  family  at  the  epoch  of  their  discovery.  Among 
the  Village  Indians  in  the  Middle  Status,  it  was  undoubt- 
edly the  prevailing  form,  although  the  information  given 
by  the  Spanish  writers  is  vague  and  general.  The  com- 
munal character  of  their  joint-tenement  houses  is  of  itself 
strong  evidence  that  the  family  had  not  passed  out  of  the 
syndyasmian  form.  It  had  neither  the  individuality  nor  the 
exclusiveness  which  monogamy  implies. 

The  foreign  elements  intermingled  with  the  native  cul- 
ture in  sections  of  the  Eastern  hemisphere  produced  an  ab- 
normal condition  of  society,  where  the  arts  of  civilized  life 
were  remolded  to  the  aptitudes  and  wants  of  savages  and 
barbarians.'  Tribes  strictly  nomadic  have  also  social  pe- 
culiarities, growing  out  of  their  exceptional  mode  of  life, 
which  are  not  well  understood.  Through  influences,  de- 
rived from  the  higher  races,  the  indigenous  culture  of  many 
tribes  has  been  arrested,  and  so  far  adulterated  as  to  change 
the  natural  flow  of  their  progress.  Their  institutions  and 
social  state  became  modified  in  consequence. 

It  is  essential  to  systematic  progress  in  Ethnology  that 
the  condition  both  of  savage  and  of  barbarous  tribes  should 
be  studied  in  its  normal  development  in  areas  where  the 
institutions  of  the  people  are  homogeneous.  Polynesia  and 
Australia,  as  elsewhere  suggested,  are  the  best  areas  for 
the  study  of  savage  society.  Nearly  the  whole  theory  of 
savage  life  may  be  deduced  from  their  institutions,  usages 
and  customs,  inventions  and  discoveries.  North  and  South 
America,  when  discovered,  afforded  the  best  opportuni- 
ties for  studying  the  condition  of  society  in  the  Lower  and 

'  Iron,  has  been  smelted  from  the  ore  by  a  number  of  African  tribes,  including 
tha, Hottentots,  as  far  back  as  our  knowledge  of  them  extends.  After  pro- 
ducing the  metal  by  rude  processes  acquired  from  foreign  sources,  they  have 
succeeded  in  fabricating  rude  implements  and  weapons. 


464  ANCIENT  SOCIETY, 

in  the  Middle  Status  of  barbarism.  Tlie  aborigines,  one 
stock  in  blood  and  lineage,  with  the  exception  of  the  Es- 
kimos, had  gained  possession  of  a  great  continent,  more 
richly  endowed  for  human  occupation  than  the  Eastern  con- 
tinents, save  in  animals  capable  of  domestication.  It  af- 
forded them  an  ample  field  for  undisturbed  development. 
They  came  into  its  possession  apparently  in  a  savage  state ; 
but  the  establishment  of  the  organization  into  gentes  put 
them  into  possession  of  the  principal  germs  of  progress 
possessed  by  the  ancestors  of  the  Greeks  and  Romans.* 
Cut  off  thus  early,  and  losing  all  further  connection  with 
the  central  stream  of  human  progress,  they  commenced 
their  career  upon  a  new  continent  with  the  humble  mental 
and  moral  endowments  of  savages.  The  independent  evo- 
lution of  the  primary  ideas  they  brought  with  them  com- 
menced under  conditions  insuring  a  career  undisturbed  by 
foreign  influences.  It  holds  true  alike  in  the  growth  of  the 
idea  of  government,  of  the  family,  of  household  life,  of  prop- 
erty, and  of  the  arts  of  subsistence.  Their  institutions,  in- 
ventions and  discoveries,  from  savagery,  through  the  Lower 
and  into  the  Middle  Status  of  barbarism,  are  homogeneous, 
and  still  reveal  a  continuity  of  development  of  the  same 
original  conceptions. 

In  no  part  of  the  earth,  in  modern  times,  could  a  more 
perfect  exemplification  of  the  Lower  Status  of  barbarism 
be  found  than  was  afforded  by  the  Iroquois,  and  other 
tribes  of  the  United  States  east  of  the  Mississippi.  With 
their  arts  indigenous  and  unmixed,  and  with  their  institu- 
tions pure  and  homogeneous,  the  culture  of  this  period,  in 
its  range,  elements  and  possibilities,  is  illustrated  by  them 
in  the  fullest  manner.      A  systematic  exposition  of  these 


'  The  Asiatic  origin  of  the  American  aborigines  is  assumed.  But  it  follows 
as  a  consequence  of  the  unity  of  origin  of  mankind — another  assumption,  but 
one  toward  which  all  the  facts  of  anthropology  tend.  There  is  a  mass  of  evi- 
dence sustaining  both  conclusions  of  the  most  convincing  character.  Their 
advent  in  America  could  not  have  resulted  from  a  deliberate  migration  ;  but 
must  have  been  due  to  the  accidents  of  the  sea,  and  to  tlie  great  ocean  currents 
from  Asia  to  tlie  North-west  coast. 


SYND  YA  SMIAN  AND  PA  TRIARCHAL  FAMILIES.      465 

several  subjects  ought  to.  be  made,  before  the  facts  are 
allowed  to  disappear. 

In  a  still  higher  degree  all  this  was  true  with  respect  to 
the  Middle  Status  of  barbarism,  as  exemplified  by  the 
Village  Indians  of  New  Mexico,  Mexico,  Central  America, 
Grenada,  Ecuador,  and  Peru.  In  no  part  of  the  earth  was 
there  to  be  found  such  a  display  of  society  in  this  Status,  in 
the  sixteenth  century,  with  its  advanced  arts  and  inven- 
tions, its  improved  architecture,  its  nascent  manufactures 
and  its  incipient  sciences.  American  scholars  have  a  poor 
account  to  render  of  work  done  in  this  fruitful  field.  It  was 
in  reality  a  lost  condition  of  ancient  society  which  was  sud- 
denly unveiled  to  European  observers  with  the  discovery  of 
America  ;  but  they  failed  to  comprehend  its  meaning,  or  to 
ascertain  its  structure. 

There  is  one  other  great  condition  of  society,  that  of  the 
Upper  Status  of  barbarism,  not  now  exemplified  by  exist- 
ing nations ;  but  it  may  be  found  in  the  history  and  tradi- 
tions of  the  Grecian  and  Roman,  and  later  of  the  German 
tribes.  It  must  be  deduced,  in  the  main,  from  their  institu- 
tions, inventions  and  discoveries,  although  there  is  a  large 
amount  of  information  illustrative  of  the  culture  of  this 
period,  especially  in  the  Homeric  poems. 

When  these  several  conditions  of  society  have  been  stud- 
ied in  the  areas  of  their  highest  exemplification,  and  are 
thoroughly  understood,  the  course  of  human  development 
from  savagery,  through  barbarism  to  civilization,  will  be- 
come intelligible  as  a  connected  whole.  The  course  of 
human  experience  will  also  be  found  as  before  suggested  to 
have  run  in  nearly  uniform  channels. 

The  patriarchal  family  of  the  Semitic  tribes  requires  but 
a  brief  notice,  for  reasons  elsewhere  stated  ;  and  it  will  be 
limited  to  little  more  than  a  definition.  It  belongs  to  the 
Later  Period  of  barbarism,  and  remained  for  a  time  after 
the  commencement  of  civilization.  The  chiefs,  at  least, 
lived  in  polygamy;  but  this  was  not  the  material  principle 
of  the  patriarchal  institution.  The  organization  of  a  num- 
ber of  persons,  bond  and  free,  into  a  family,  under  pater- 
30 


466  ANCIENT  SOCIETY. 

nal  power,  for  the  purpose  of  holding  lands,  and  for  the  care 
of  flocks  and  herds,  was  the  essential  characteristic  of  this 
family.  Those  held  to  servitude,  and  those  employed  as 
servants,  lived  in  the  marriage  relation,  and,  with  the  patri- 
arch as  their  chief,  formed  a  patriarchal  family.  Authority 
over  its  members  and  over  its  property  was  the  material 
fact.  It  was  the  incorporation  of  numbers  in  servile  and 
dependent  relations,  before  that  time  unknown,  rather  than 
polygamy,  that  stamped  the  patriarchal  family  with  the 
attributes  of  an  original  institution.  In  the  great  move- 
ment of  Semitic  society,  which  produced  this  family,  pater- 
nal power  over  the  group  was  the  object  sought  ;  and  with 
it  a  higher  individuality  of  persons. 

The  same  motive  precisely  originated  the  Roman  family 
under  paternal  power  [pairia  potestas) ;  with  the  power  in 
the  father  of  life  and  death  over  his  children  and  descend- 
ants, as  well  as  over  the  slaves  and  servants  who  formed  its 
nucleus  and  furnished  its  name;  and  with  the  absolute  own- 
ership of  all  the  property  they  created.  Without  polygamy, 
the  pater  faniilias  was  a  patriarch  and  the  family  under 
him  was  patriarchal.  In  a  less  degree,  the  ancient  family  of 
the  Grecian  tribes  had  the  same  characteristics.  It  marks 
that  peculiar  epoch  in  human  progress  when  the  individu- 
ality of  the  person  began  to  rise  above  the  gens,  in  which  it 
had  previously  been  merged,  craving  an  independent  life, 
and  a  wider  field  of  individual  action.  Its  general  influence 
tended  powerfully  to  the  establishment  of  the  monogamian 
family,  which  was  essential  to  the  realization  of  the  objects 
sought.  These  striking  features  of  the  patriarchal  families, 
so  unlike  any  form  previously  known,  have  given  to  it  a 
commanding  position  ;  but  the  Hebrew  aiid  Roman  forms 
were  exceptional  in  human  experience.  In  the  consan- 
guine and  punaluan  families,  paternal  authority  was  impossi- 
ble as  well  as  unknown  ;  under  the  syndyasmian  it  began  to 
appear  as  a  feeble  influence ;  but  its  growth  steadily  ad- 
vanced as  the  family  became  more  and  more  individualized, 
and  became  fully  established  under  monogamy,  which  as- 
sured the  paternity  of  children.     In  the  patriarchal  family 


SVJVn  YASMIAN  AND  PA  TRIARCHAL  FAMILIES.       467 

of  the  Roman  type,  paternal  authority  passed  beyond  the 
bounds  of  reason  into  an  excess  of  domination. 

No  new  system  of  consanguinity  was  created  by  the 
Hebrew  patriarchal  family.  The  Turanian  system  would 
harmonize  with  a  part  of  its  relationships  ;  but  as  this  form 
of  the  family  soon  fell  out,  and  the  monogamian  became 
general,  it  was  followed  by  the  Semitic  system  of  consan- 
guinity, as  the  Grecian  and  Roman  were  by  the  Aryan. 
Each  of  the  three  great  systems — the  Malayan,  the  Tura- 
nian, and  the  Aryan — indicates  a  completed  organic  move- 
ment of  society,  and  each  assured  the  presence,  with  unerr- 
ing certainty,  of  that  form  of  the  family  whose  relationships 
it  recorded. 


CHAPTER  V. 

THE   MONOGAMIAN   FAMILY. 

This  Family  comparatively  Modern. — The  Term  Familia. — Family  of 
Ancient  Germans. — Of  Homeric  Greeks. — Of  civilized  Greeks. — Seclue 
sioN  OF  Wives. — Obligations  of  Monogamy  not  respected  by  thf 
Males. — The  Roman  Family. — Wives  under  Power. — Aryan  System  of 
Consanguinity. — It  came  in  under  Monogamy. — Previous  System 
probably  Turanian. — Transition  from  Turanian  into  Aryan. — Roman 
and  Arabic  Systems  of  Consanguinity. — Details  of  the  Former. — 
Present  Monogamian  Family. — Table. 

The  origin  of  society  has  been  so  constantly  traced  to 
the  monogamian  family  that  the  comparatively  modern 
date  now  assigned  to  this  family  bears  the  semblance  of 
novelty.  Those  writers  who  have  investigated  the  origin 
of  society  philosophically,  found  it  difficult  to  conceive  of 
its  existence  apart  from  the  family  as  its  unit,  or  of  the 
family  itself  as  other  than  monogamian.  They  also  found 
it  necessary  to  regard  the  married  pair  as  the  nucleus  of  a 
group  of  persons,  a  part  of  whom  were  servile,  and  all  of 
whom  were  under  power;  thus  arriving  at  the  conclusion 
that  society  began  in  the  patriarchal  family,  when  it  first 
became  organized.  Such,  in  fact,  was  the  most  ancient 
form  of  the  institution  made  known  to  us  among  the  Latin, 
Grecian  and  Hebrew  tribes.  Thus,  by  relation,  the  patri- 
archal family  was  made  the  typical  family  of  primitive 
society,  conceived  either  in  the  Latin  or  Hebrew  form, 
paternal  power  being  the  essence  of  the  organism. 

The  gens,  as  it  appeared  in  the  later  period  of  barbarism, 


THE  MONOGAMIAN  FAMIL  Y.  469 

was  well  understood,  but  it  was  erroneously  supposed  to  be 
subsequent  in  point  of  time  to  the  monogamian  family. 
A  necessity  for  some  knowledge  of  the  institutions  of  bar- 
barous and  even  of  savage  tribes,  is  becoming  constantly 
more  apparent  as  a  means  for  explaining  our  own  insti- 
tutions. With  the  assumption  made  that  the  monogamian 
family  was  the  unit  of  organization  in  the  social  system, 
the  gens  was  treated  as  an  aggregation  of  families,  the 
tribe  as  an  aggregation  of  gentes,  and  the  nation  as  an 
aggregate  of  tribes.  The  error  lies  in  the  first  proposition. 
It  has  been  shown  that  the  gens  entered  entire  in  the 
phratry,  the  phratry  into  the  tribe,  and  the  tribe  into  the 
nation ;  but  the  family  could  not  enter  entire  into  the  gens, 
because  husband  and  wife  were  necessarily  of  different 
gentes.  The  wife,  down  to  the  latest  period,  counted  her- 
self of  the  gens  of  her  father,  and  bore  the  name  of  his  gens 
among  the  Romans.  As  all  the  parts  must  enter  into  the 
whole,  the  family  could  not  become  the  unit  of  the  gentile 
organization.  That  place  was  held  by  the  gens.  Moreover, 
the  patriarchal  family,  whether  of  the  Roman  or  of  the 
Hebrew  type^  was  entirely  unknown  throughout  the  period 
of  savagery,  through  the  Older,  and  probably  through  the 
Middle,  and  far  into  the  Later  Period  of  barbarism.  After 
the  gens  had  appeared,  ages  upon  ages,  and  even  period 
upon  period,  rolled  away  before  the  monogamian  family 
came  into  existence.  It  was  not  until  after  civilization 
commenced  that  it  became  permanently  established. 

Its  modern  appearance  among  the  Latin  tribes  may  be 
inferred  from  the  signification  of  the  word  family,  derived 
from  fainilia,  which  contains  the  same  element  ?i?>  fanuiliis, 
=  servant,  supposed  to  be  derived  from  tlie  Oscan  faniel,  = 
servus,  a  slave.'  In  its  primary  meaning  the  word  family 
had  no  relation  to  the  married  pair  or  their  children,  but  to 
the  body  of  slaves  and  servants  who  labored  for  its  main- 
tenance, and  were  under  the  power  of  the  pater  familias. 
Familia  in  some  testamentary  dispositions  is  used  as  equiv- 

*  Famuli  origo  ab  Oscis  dependet,  apud  quo  servus  Famul  nominabuntur, 
Mn^t  familia  vocata, — Festtis,  p.  87. 


470 


ANCIENT  SOCIETY. 


alent  to  patrimonijuu,  tlie  inheritance  which  passed  to  the 
heir.'  It  was  introduced  in  Latin  society  to  define  a  new 
organism,  the  head  of  which  held  wife  and  children,  and  a 
body  of  servile  persons  under  paternal  power.  Mommsen 
uses  the  phrase  ''body  of  servants"  as  the  Latin  significa- 
tion of  faviilia.^  This  term,  therefore,  and  the  idea  it 
represents,  are  no  older  than  the  iron-clad  family  system  of 
the  Latin  tribes,  which  came  in  after  field  agriculture  and 
after  legalized  servitude,  as  well  as  after  the  separation  of 
the  Greeks  and  Latins.  If  any  name  was  given  to  the 
anterior  family  it  is  not  now  ascertainable. 

In  two  forms  of  the  family,  the  consanguine  and  punaluan, 
paternal  power  was  impossible.  When  the  gens  appeared 
in  the  midst  of  the  punaluan  group  it  united  the  several 
sisters,  with  their  children  and  descendants  in  the  female 
line,  in  perpetuity,  in  a  gens,  which  became  the  unit  of 
organization  in  the  social  system  it  created.  Out  of  this 
state  of  things  the  syndyasmian  family  was  gradually 
evolved,  and  with  it  the  germ  of  paternal  power.  The 
growth  of  this  power,  at  first  feeble  and  fluctuating,  then 
commenced,  and  it  steadily  increased,  as  the  new  family 
more  and  more  assumed  monogamian  characteristics,  with 
the  upward  progress  of  society.  When  property  began  to 
be  created  in  masses,  and  the  desire  for  its  transmission  to 
children  had  changed  descent  from  the  female  line  to  the 
male,  a  real  foundation  for  paternal  power  was  for  the  first 
time  established.  Among  the  Hebrew  and  Latin  tribes, 
when  first  known,  the  patriarchal  family  of  the  Hebrew 
type  existed  among  the  former,  and  of  the  Roman  type 
among  the  latter;  founded  in  both  cases  upon  the  limited 
or  absolute  servitude  of  a  number  of  persons  with  their  fami- 
lies, all  of  whom,  with  the  wives  and  children  of  the  patri- 
arch in  one  case,  and  of  the  pater  familias  in  the  other, 
were  under  paternal  power.  It  was  an  exceptional,  and, 
in  the  Roman  family,  an  excessive  development  of  paternal 
authority,  which,  so  far  from  being  universal,  was  restricted 

'  Amico  familiam  suam,  id  est  patrimonium  suum  mancipio  dabat. — Gains, 
Inst.,  ii,  I02.  "^  IIisto)y  of  Rome,  1.  c,  t,  95. 


THE  MONOGAMIAN  FAMILY.  47 1 

in  the  main  to  the  people  named.  Gaius  declares  that  the 
power  of  the  Roman  father  over  his  children  was  peculiar 
to  the  Romans,  and  that  in  general  no  other  people  had  the 
same  power.' 

It  will  be  sufficient  to  present  a  few  illustrations  of  the 
early  monogamian  family  from  classical  writers  to  give 
an  impression  of  its  character.  Monogamy  appears  in  a 
definite  form  in  the  Later  Period  of  barbarism.  Long  prior 
to  this  time  some  of  its  characteristics  had  undoubtedly 
attached  themselves  to  the  previous  syndyasmian  family; 
but  the  essential  element  of  the  former,  an  exclusive  cohab- 
itation, could  not  be  asserted  of  the  latter. 

One  of  the  earliest  and  most  interesting  illustrations  was 
found  in  the  family  of  the  ancient  Germans.  Their  institu- 
tions were  homogeneous  and  indigenous  ;  and  the  people 
were  advancing  toward  civilization.  Tacitus,  in  a  few  lines, 
states  their  usages  with  respect  to  marriage,  without  giving 
the  composition  of  the  family  or  defining  its  attributes. 
After  stating  that  marriages  were  strict  among  them,  and 
pronouncing  it  commendable,  he  further  remarks,  that  al- 
most alone  among  barbarians  they  contented  themselves 
with  a  single  wife — a.  very  few  excepted,  who  were  drawn 
into  plural  marriages,  not  from  passion,  but  on  account  of 
their  rank.  That  the  wife  did  not  bring  a  dowry  to  her 
husband,  but  the  husband  to  his  wife,  ....  a  capari- 
soned horse,  and  a  shield,  with  a  spear  and  sword.  That 
by  virtue  of  these  gifts  the  wife  was  espoused."  The  pres- 
ents, in  the  nature  of  purchasing  gifts,  which  probably  in 
an  earlier  condition  went  to  the  gentile  kindred  of  the 
bride,  were  now  presented  to  the  bride. 

Elsewhere  he  mentions  the  two  material  facts  in  which 
the  substance  of  monogamy  is  found  :*  firstly,  that  each  man 
was  contented  with  a  single  wife  {singulis  uxoribus  contcnti 

*  Item  in  potestate  nostra  sunt  liberi  nostri,  quos  justis  nuptiis  procreauimus, 
quod  jus  proprium  ciuium  Romanorum  est :  fere  enim  nulli  alii  sunt  homines, 
qui  talem  in  filios  sues  habetit  potestatem,  qualem  nos  habemus. — Inst.,  i,  55. 
Among  other  things  they  had  the  power  of  life  and  death — ^jus  vitse  necisque. 
'  Gerniania,  c.  18.  ^  lb.,  c.  ig. 


4/2 


ANCIENT  SOCIETY. 


sunt)  ;  and,  secondly,  that  the  women  h'ved  fenced  around 
with  chastity  {scptce  pudicitia  agu?it).  It  seems  probable, 
from  what  is  known  of  the  condition  of  the  family  in  differ- 
ent ethnical  periods,  that  this  of  the  ancient  Germans  was 
too  weak  an  organization  to  face  alone  the  hardships  of  life  ; 
and,  as  a  consequence,  sheltered  itself  in  a  communal  house- 
hold composed  of  related  families.  When  slavery  became 
an  institution,  these  households  would  gradually  disappear. 
German  society  was  not  far  enough  advanced  at  this  time 
for  the  appearance  of  a  high  type  of  the  monogamian 
family. 

With  respect  to  the  Homeric  Greeks,  the  family,  although 
monogamian,  was  low  in  type.  Husbands  required  chastity 
in  their  wives,  which  they  sought  to  enforce  by  some  degree 
of  seclusion  ;  but  they  did  not  admit  the  reciprocal  obli- 
gation by  which  alone  it  could  be  permanently  secured. 
Abundant  evidence  appears  in  the  Homeric  poems  that 
woman  had  ^qw  rights  men  were  bound  to  respect.  Such 
femala  captives  as  were  swept  into  their  vessels  by  the  Gre- 
cian chiefs,  on  their  way  to  Troy,  were  appropriated  to  their 
passions  without  compunction  and  without  restraint.  It 
must  be  taken  as  a  faithful  picture  of  the  times,  whether  the 
incidents  narrated  in  the  poems  were  real  or  fictitious. 
Although  the  persons  were  captives,  it  reflects  the  low  esti- 
mate placed  upon  woman.  Her  dignity  was  unrecognized, 
and  her  personal  rights  were  insecure.  To  appease  the  re- 
sentment of  Achilles,  Agamemnon  proposed,  in  a  council 
of  the  Grecian  chiefs,  to  give  to  him,  among  other  things, 
seven  Lesbian  women  excelling  in  personal  beauty,  reserved 
for  himself  from  the  spoil  of  that  city,  Briseis  herself  to  go 
among  the  number ;  and  should  Troy  be  taken,  the  further 
right  to  select  twenty  Trojan  women,  the  fairest  of  all  next 
to  Argive  Helen.'  "  Beauty  and  Booty"  were  the  watch- 
words of  the  Heroic  Age  unblushingly  avowed.  The  treat- 
ment of  their  female  captives  reflects  the  culture  of  the 
period  with  respect  to  women  in  general.  Men  having  no 
regard  for  the  parental,  marital  or  personal  rights  of  their 

^  Iliad,  ix,  128. 


THE  MONOGAMIAN  FAMIL  V.  473 

enemies,  could  not  have  attained  to  any  high  conception  of 
their  own. 

In  describing  the  tent  life  of  the  unwedded  Achilles, 
and  of  his  friend  Patroclus,  Homer  deemed  it  befitting  the 
character  and  dignity  of  Achilles  as  a  chief  to  show,  that 
he  slept  in  the  recess  of  his  well-constructed  tent,  and  by 
his  side  lay  a  female,  fair-cheeked  Diomede,  whom  he  had 
brought  from  Lesbos.  And  that  Patroclus  on  the  other 
side  reclined,  and  by  him  also  lay  fair-waisted  Iphis,  whom 
noble  Achilles  gave  him,  having  captured  her  at  Scyros.' 
Such  usages  and  customs  on  the  part  of  unmarried  as  well 
as  married  men,  cited  approvingly  by  the  great  poet  of  the 
period,  and  sustained  by  public  sentiment,  tend  to  show 
that  whatever  of  monogamy  existed,  was  through  an  en- 
forced constraint  upon  wives,  while  their  husbands  were 
not  monogamists  in  the  preponderating  number  of  cases. 
Such  a  family  has  quite  as' many  syndyasmian  as  mono- 
gamian  characteristics. 

The  condition  of  woman  in  the  Heroic  Age  is  supposed 
to  have  been  more  favorable,  and  her  position  in  the  house- 
hold more  honorable  than  it  was  at  the  commencement 
of  civilization,  and  even  afterwards  under  their  highest 
development.  It  may  have  been  true  in  a  far  anterior 
period  before  descent  was  changed  to  the  male  line,  but 
there  seems  to  be  little  room  for  the  conjecture  at  the  time 
named.  A  great  change  for  the  better  occurred,  so  far  as 
the  means  and  mode  of  life  were  concerned,  but  it  served 
to  render  more  conspicuous  the  real  estimate  placed  upon 
her  through  the  Later  Period  of  barbarism. 

Elsewhere  attention  has  been  called  to  the  fact,  that  when 
descent  was  changed  from  the  female  line  to  the  male,  it 
operated  injuriously  upon  the  position  and  rights  of  the 
wife  and  mother.  Her  children  were  transferred  from  her 
owa—ge^s  to  that  of  her  husband,  and  she  forfeited  her 
'agnatic  rights  by  her  marriage  without  obtaining  an 
etjtrrvalent.  Before  the  change,  the  members  of  her  own 
gens,   in  all  probability,   predominated   in  the  household, 

'//.,ix,  663. 


474  ANCIENT  SOCIETY. 

which  gave  full  force  to  the  maternal  bond,  and  made  the 
woman  rather  more  than  the  man  the  center  of  the  family. 
After  the  change  she  stood  alone  in  the  household  of  her 
husband,  isolated  from  her  gentile  kindred.  It  must  have 
weakened  the  influence  of  the  maternal  bond,  and  have 
operated  powerfully  to  lower  her  position  and  arrest  her 
progress  in  the  social  scale.  Among  the  prosperous  classes, 
her  condition  of  enforced  seclusion,  together  with  the  avowed 
primary  object  of  marriage,  to  beget  children  in  lawful 
wedlock  {naidoTtoieiaBai  yvr^aicos),  lead  to  the  inference 
that  her  position  was  less  favorable  in  the  Heroic  Age  than 
in  the  subsequent  period,  concerning  which  we  are  much 
better  informed. 

From  first  to  last  among  the  Greeks  there  was  a  principle 
of  egotism  or  studied  selfishness  at  work  among  the  males, 
tending  to  lessen  the  appreciation  of  woman,  scarcely  found 
among  savages.  It  reveals  itself  in  their  plan  of  domestic 
life,  which  in  the  higher  ranks  secluded  the  wife  to  enforce 
an  exclusive  cohabitation,  without  admitting  the  reciprocal 
obligation  on  the  part  of  her  husband.  It  implies  the  ex- 
istence of  an  antecedent  conjugal  system  of  the  Turanian 
type,  against  which  it  was  designed  to  guard.  So  power- 
fully had  the  usages  of  centuries  stamped  upon  the  minds 
of  Grecian  women  a  sense  of  their  inferiority,  that  they  did 
did  not  recover  from  it  to  the  latest  period  of  Grecian 
ascendency.  It  was,  perhaps,  one  of  the  sacrifices  required 
of  womankind  to  bring  this  portion  of  the  human  race  out 
of  the  syndyasmian  into  the  monogamian  family.  It  still 
remains  an  enigma  that  a  race,  with  endowments  great 
enough  to  impress  their  mental  life  upon  the  world,  should 
have  remained  essentially  barbarian  in  their  treatment  of 
the  female  sex  at  the  height  of  their  civilization.  Women 
were  not  treated  with  cruelty,  nor  with  discourtesy  within 
the  range  of  the  privileges  allowed  them  ;  but  their  educa- 
tion was  superficial,  intercourse  with  the  opposite  sex  was 
.denied  them,  and  their  inferiority  was  inculcated  as  a  prin- 
ciple, until  it  came  to  be  accepted  as  a  fact  by  the  women 
themselves.       The    wife  was   not   the    companion    and    the 


THE  MONOGAMIAN  FAMILY.  475 

equal  of  her  husband,  but  stood  to  him  in  the  relation  of 
a  daughter ;  thus  denying  the  fundamental  principle  of 
monogamy,  as  the  institution  in  its  highest  form  must  be 
understood.  The  wife  is  necessarily  the  equal  of  her  hus- 
band in  dignity,  in  personal  rights  and  in  social  position. 
We  may  thus  discover  at  what  a  price  of  experience  and 
endurance  this  great  institution  of  modern  society  has  been 
won. 

Our  information  is  quite  ample  and  specific  with  respect 
to  the  condition  of  Grecian  women  and  the  Grecian  family 
during  the  historical  period.  Becker,  with  the  marvelous 
research  for  which  his  works  are  distinguished,  has  collected 
the  principal  facts  and  presented  them  with  clearness  and 
force.*     His  statements,  while  they  do  not  furnish  a  com- 

'  The  following  condensed  statement,  taken  from  Charicles  {Excitrsus,  xii, 
Longman's  ed.,  Metcalfe's  trans.),  contains  the  material  facts  illustrative  of  the 
subject.  After  expressing  the  opinion  that  the  women  of  Homer  occupied  a 
more  honorable  position  in  the  household  than  the  women  of  the  historical 
period,  he  makes  the  following  statements  with  respect  to  the  condition  of 
women,  particularly  at  Athens  and  Sparta,  during  the  high  period  of  Grecian 
culture.  He  observes  that  the  only  excellence  of  which  a  woman  was  thought 
capable  differed  but  little  from  that  of  a  faithful  slave  (p.  464)  ;  that  her  utter 
want  of  independence  led  to  her  being  considered  a  minor  all  her  life  long  ; 
that  there  were  neither  educational  institutions  for  girls,  nor  any  private  teachers 
at  home,  their  whole  instruction  being  left  to  the  mothers,  and  to  nurses,  and 
limited  to  spinning  and  weaving  and  other  female  avocations  (p.  465) ;  that 
they  were  almost  entirely  deprived  of  that  most  essential  promoter  ot  female 
culture,  the  society  of  the  other  sex  ;  strangers  as  well  as  their  nearest  relatives 
being  entirely  excluded  ;  even  their  fathers  and  husbands  saw  them  but  little, 
the  men  being  more  abroad  than  at  home,  and  when  at  home  inhabiting  their 
own  apartments  ;  that  the  gyneeconitis,  though  not  exactly  a  prison,  nor  yet  a 
locked  harem,  was  still  the  confined  abode  allotted  for  life  to  the  female  portion 
of  the  household  ;  that  it  was  particularly  the  case  with  the  maidens,  who  lived 
in  the  greatest  seclusion  until  their  marriage,  and,  so  to  speak,  regularly  under 
lock  and  key  (p.  465) ;  that  it  was  unbecoming  for  a  young  wife  to  leave  the 
house  without  her  husband's  knowledge,  and  in  fact  she  seldom  quitted  it  ;  she 
was  thus  restricted  to  the  society  of  her  female  slaves  ;  and  her  husband,  if  he 
chose  to  exercise  it,  had  the  power  of  keeping  her  in  confinement  (p.  466)  ;  that 
at  those  festivals,  from  which  men  were  excluded,  the  women  had  an  opportunity 
of  seeing  something  of  each  other,  which  they  enjoyed  all  the  more  from  their 
ordinary  seclusion  ;  that  women  found  it  difficult  to  go  out  of  their  houses  from 
these  special  restrictions  ;  that  no  respectable  lady  thought  of  going  without 
the  attendance  of  a  female  slave  assigned  to  her  for  that  purpose   by  her  hus- 


476  ANCIENT  SOCIETY. 

plete  picture  of  the  family  of  the  historical  period,  are 
quite  sufficient  to  indicate  the  great  difference  between  the 
Grecian  and  the  modern  civilized  family,  and  also  to  show 
the  condition  of  the  monogamian  family  in  the  early  stages 
of  its  development. 

Among  the  facts  stated  by  Becker,  there  are  two  that 
deserve  further  notice:  first,  the  declaration  that  the  chief 
object  of  marriage  was  the  procreation  of  children  in  law- 
ful wedlock;  and  second,  the  seclusion  of  women  to  insure 
this  result.  The  two  are  intimately  connected,  and  throw 
some  reflected  light  upon  the  previous  condition  from  which 
they  had  emerged.     In  the  first  place,  the  passion  of  love 

band  (p.  469)  ;  that  this  method  of  treatment  had  the  efiect  of  rendering  the 
girls  excessively  bashful  and  even  prudish,  and  that  even  a  married  woman 
shrunk  back  and  blushed  if  she  chanced  to  be  seen  at  the  window  by  a  man 
(p.  471);  that  marriage  in  reference  to  the  procreation  of  children  was  consid- 
ered by  the  Greeks  a  necessity,  enforced  by  their  duty  to  the  gods,  to  the  state 
and  to  their  ancestors  ;  that  until  a  very  late  period,  at  least,  no  higher  consid- 
eration attached  to  matrimony,  nor  was  strong  attachment  a  frequent  cause  of 
marriage  (p.  473) ;  that  whatever  attachment  existed  sprang  from  the  soil  of 
sensuality,  and  none  other  than  sensual  love  was  acknowledged  between  man 
and  wife  (p.  473)  ;  that  at  Athens,  and  probably  in  the  other  Grecian  states  as 
well,  the  generation  of  children  was  considered  the  chief  end  of  marriage,  the 
choice  of  the  bride  seldom  depending  on  previous,  or  at  least  intimate  acquaint- 
ance ;  and  more  attention  was  paid  to  the  position  of  the  damsel's  family,  and 
the  amount  of  her  dowry,  than  to  her  personal  qualities  ;  that  such  marriages 
were  unfavorable  to  the  existence  of  real  affection,  wherefore  coldness,  indiffer- 
ence, and  discontent  frequently  prevailed  (p.  477)  ;  that  the  husband  and  wife 
took  their  meals  together,  provided  no  other  men  were  dining  with  the  master  of 
the  house,  for  no  woman  who  did  not  wish  to  be  accounted  a  courtesan,  would 
think  even  in  her  own  house  of  participating  in  the  symposia  of  the  men,  or  of 
being  present  when  her  husband  accidentally  brought  home  a  friend  to  dinner 
(p.  490)  ;  that  the  province  of  the  wife  was  the  management  of  the  entire 
household,  and  the  nurture  of  the  children — of  the  boys  until  they  were  placed 
under  a  master,  of  the  girls  until  their  marriage  ;  that  the  infidelity  of  the  wife 
was  judged  most  harshly  ;  and  while  it  might  be  supposed  that  the  woman,  from 
her  strict  seclusion,  was  generally  precluded  from  transgressing,  they  very  fre- 
quently found  means  of  deceiving  their  husbands  ;  that  the  law  imposed  the 
duty  of  continence  in  a  very  unequal  manner,  for  while  the  husband  required 
from  the  wife  the  strictest  fidelity,  and  visited  with  severity  any  dereliction  on 
her  part,  he  allowed  himself  to  have  intercourse  with  hetcerce,  which  conduct, 
though  not  exactly  approved,  did  not  meet  with  any  marked  censure,  and  much 
less  was  it  considered  any  violation  of  matrimonial  rights  (p.  494). 


•  THE  MONOGAMIAN  FAMIL  Y.  477 

was  unknown  among  the  barbarians.  They  are  below  the 
sentiment,  which  is  the  offspring  of  civilization  and  super- 
added refinement.  The  Greeks  in  general,  as  their  marriage 
customs  show,  had  not  attained  to  a  knowledge  of  this  pas- 
sion, although  there  were,  of  course,  numerous  exceptions. 
Physical  worth,  in  Grecian  estimation,  was  the  measure  of 
all  the  excellences  of  which  the  female  sex  were  capable. 
Marriage,  therefore,  was  not  grounded  upon  sentiment,  but 
upon  necessity  and  duty.  These  considerations  are  those 
which  governed  the  Iroquois  and  the  Aztecs ;  in  fact  they 
originated  in  barbarism,  and  reveal  the  anterior  barbarous 
condition  of  the  ancestors  of  the  Grecian  tribes.  It  seems 
strange  that  they  were  sufficient  to  answer  the  Greek  ideal 
of  the  family  relation  in  the  midst  of  Grecian  civilization. 

!The  growth  of  property  and  the  desire  for  its  transmission 
to  children  was,  in  reality,  the  moving  power  which  brought 
in  monogamy  to  insure  legitimate  heirs,  and  to  limit  their 
number  to  the  actual  progeny  of  the  married  pair.  A 
knowledge  of  the  paternity  of  children  had  begun  to  be 
realized  under  the  syndyasmian  family,  from  which  the 
Grecian  form  was  evidently  derived,  but  it  had  not  attained 
the  requisite  degree  of  certainty  because  of  the  survival  of 
some  portion  of  the  ancienty^r^z  conjugialia.  It  explains  the 
new  usage  which  made  its  appearance  in  the  Upper  Status 
of  barbarism;  namely,  the  seclusion  of  wives.  An  implica- 
tion to  this  effect  arises  from  the  circumstance  that  a  neces- 
sity for  the  seclusion  of  the  wife  must  have  existed  at  the 
time,  and  which  seems  to  have  been  so  formidable  that  the 
plan  of  domestic  life  among  the  civilized  Greeks  was,  in 
reality,  a  system  of  female  confinement  and  restraint.  Al- 
though the  particulars  cited  relate  more  especially  to  the 
family  among  the  prosperous  classes,  the  spirit  it  evinces 
was  doubtless  general. 

Turning  next  to  the  Roman  family,  the  condition  of 
woman  is  more  favorable,  but  her  subordination  the  same. 

She  was  treated  with  respect  in  Rome  as  in  Athens, 
but  in  the  Roman  family  her  influence  and  authority  were 
greater.     As  mater  familias  she   was  mistress  of  the  fam- 


478 


ANCIENT  SOCIETY. 


ily.  She  went  into  the  streets  freely  without  restraint  on 
the  part  of  her  husband,  and  frequented  with  the  men  the 
theaters  and  festive  banquets.  In  the  house  she  was  not 
confined  to  particular  apartments,  neither  was  she  excluded 
from  the  table  of  the  men.  The  absence  of  the  worst 
restrictions  placed  upon  Grecian  females  was  favorable  to 
the  growth  of  a  sense  of  personal  dignity  and  of  independ- 
ence among  Roman  women.  Plutarch  remarks  that  after 
the  peace  with  the  Sabines,  effected  through  the  interven- 
tion of  the  Sabine  women,  many  honorable  privileges  were 
conferred  upon  them  ;  the  men  were  to  give  them  the  way 
when  they  met  on  the  street ;  they  were  not  to  utter  a  vul- 
gar word  in  the  presence  of  females,  nor  appear  nude  before 
them.'  Marriage,  however,  placed  the  wife  in  the  power 
of  her  husband  {in  inaniim  viri);  the  notion  that  she  must 
remain  under  power  following,  by  an  apparent  necessity, 
her  emancipation  by  her  marriage  from  paternal  power. 
The  husband  treated  his  wife  as  his  daughter,  and  not  as 
his  equal.  Moreover,  he  had  the  power  of  correction,  and 
of  life  and  death  in  case  of  adultery  ;  but  the  exercise  of 
this  last  power  seems  to  have  been  subject  to  the  concur- 
rence of  the  council  of  her  gens. 

Unlike  other  people,  the  Romans  possessed  three  forms 
of  marriage.  All  alike  placed  the  wife  in  the  hand  of  her 
husband,  and  recognized  as  the  chief  end  of  marriage  the 
procreation  of  children  in  lawful  wedlock  {libcrorum  qiicreti- 
doriim  causd)?  These  forms  [confarrcatio,  coemptio,  and 
iisus)  lasted  through  the  Republic,  but  fell  out  under  the 
Empire,  M^hen  a  fourth  form,  the  free  marriage,  was  gener- 
ally adopted,  because  it  did  not  place  the  wife  in  the  power 
of  her  husband.  Divorce,  from  the  earliest  period,  was 
at  the  option  of  the  parties,  a  characteristic  of  the  syndy- 
asmian  family,  and  transmitted  probably  from  that  source. 
They  rarely  occurred,  however,  until  near  the  close  of  the 
Republic' 

'  Vit.  Rom.,  c.  20.  "^  Quinctilian. 

'  With  respect  to  the  conjugal  fidelity  of  Roman  women,  Becker  remarks 
"  that  in  the  earlier  times  excesses  on  either  side  seldom  occurred,"  which  must 


THE  MONOGAMIAN  FA  MIL  Y. 


479 


The  licentiousness  which  prevailed  in  Grecian  and  Roman 
cities  at  the  height  of  civilization  has  generally  been 
regarded  as  a  lapse  from  a  higher  and  purer  condition  of 
virtue  and  morality.  But  the  fact  is  capable  of  a  different, 
or  at  least  of  a  modified  explanation.  They  had  never 
attained  to  a  pure  morality  in  the  intercourse  of  the  sexes 
from  which  to  decline.  Repressed  or  moderated  in  the 
midst  of  war  and  strife  endangering  the  national  existence, 
the  license  revived  with  peace  and  prosperity,  because  the 
moral  elements  of  society  had  not  risen  against  it  for  its 
extirpation.  This  licentiousness  was,  in  all  probability,  the 
remains  of  an  ancient  conjugal  system,  never  fully  eradicated, 
which  had  followed  down  from  barbarism  as  a  social  taint, 
and  now  expressed  its  excesses  in  the  new  channel  of 
hetaerism.  If  the  Greeks  and  Romans  had  learned  to 
respect  the  equities  of  monogamy,  instead  of  secluding 
their  wives  in  the  gynseconitis  in  one  case,  and  of  holding 
them  under  power  in  the  other,  there  is  reason  to  believe 
that  society  among  them  would  have  presented  a  very  dif- 
ferent aspect.  Since  neither  one  nor  the  other  had  devel- 
oped any  higher  morality,  they  had  but  little  occasion  to 
mourn  over  a  decay  of  public  morals.  The  substance  of 
the  explanation  lies  in  the  fact  that  neither  recognized  in 
its  integrity  the  principle  of  monogamy,  which  alone  was 
able  to  place  their  respective  societies  upon  a  moral  basis. 
The  premature  destruction  of  the  ethnic  life  of  these  re- 
markable races  is  due  in  no  small  measure  to  their  failure 
to  develop  and  utilize  the  mental,  moral  and  conservative 


be  set  down  as  a  mere  conjecture  ;  but  "  when  morals  began  to  deteriorate,  we 
first  meet  with  great  lapses  from  this  fidelity,  and  men  and  women  outbid  each 
other  in  wanton  indulgence.  The  original  modesty  of  the  women  became 
gradually  more  rare,  while  luxury  and  extravagance  waxed  stronger,  and  of 
many  women  it  could  be  said,  as  Clitipho  complained  of  his  Bacchis  (Ter., 
Heaiit.,  ii,  i,  15),  Afea  est  petax,  procax,  magnijica,  sunipliiosa,  tiobi/is.  Many 
Roman  ladies,  to  compensate  for  the  neglect  of  their  husbands,  had  a  lover  of 
their  own,  who,  under  the  pretense  of  being  the  procurator  of  the  lady,  accom- 
panied her  at  all  times.  As  a  natural  consequence  of  this,  celibacy  continually 
increased  amongst  the  men,  and  there  was  the  greatest  levity  respecting 
divorces  " — Gallus,  Excursus,  i,  p.  155,  Longman's  ed.,  Metcalfe's  trans. 


48o  ANCIENT  SOCIETY. 

forces  of  the  female  intellect,  which  were  not  less  essential 
than  their  own  corresponding  forces  to  their  progress  and 
preservation.  After  a  long  protracted  experience  in  bar- 
barism, during  which  they  won  the  remaining  elements  of 
civilization,  they  perished  politically,  at  the  end  of  a  brief 
career,  seemingly  from  the  exhilaration  of  the  new  life  they 
had  created. 

Among  the  Hebrews,  whilst  the  patriarchal  family  in  the 
early  period  was  common  with  the  chiefs,  the  monogamian, 
into  which  the  patriarchal  soon  subsided,  was  common 
among  the  people.  But  with  respect  to  the  constitution 
of  the  latter,  and  the  relations  of  husband  and  wife  in  the 
family,  the  details  are  scanty. 

Without  seeking  to  multiply  illustrations,  it  is  plain  that 
the  monogamian  family  had  grown  into  the  form  in  which 
it  appeared,  at  the  commencement  of  the  historical  period, 
from  a  lower  type ;  and  that  during  the  classical  period  it 
advanced  sensibly,  though  without  attaining  its  highest 
form.  It  evidently  sprang  from  a  previous  syndyasmian 
family  as  its  immediate  germ  ;  and  while  improving  with 
human  progress  it  fell  short  of  its  true  ideal  in  the  classical 
period.  Its  highest  known  perfection,  at  least,  was  not 
attained  until  modern  times.  The  portraiture  of  society  in 
the  Upper  Status  of  barbarism  by  the  early  writers  implies 
the  general  practice  of  monogamy,  but  with  attending  cir- 
cumstances indicating  that  it  was  the  monogamian  family 
of  the  future  struggling  into  existence  under  adverse  influ- 
ences, feeble  in  vitality,  rights  and  immunities,  and  still 
environed  with  the  remains  of  an  ancient  conjugal  system. 

As  the  Malayan  system  expressed  the  relationships  that 
existed  in  the  consanguine  family,  and  as  the  Turanian 
expressed  those  which  existed  in  the  punaluan,  so  the 
Aryan  expressed  those  which  existed  in  the  monogamian  ; 
each  family  resting  upon  a  different  and  distinct  form  of 
marriage. 

It  cannot  be  shown  absolutely,  in  the  present  state  of  our 
knowledge,  that  the  Aryan,  Semitic  and  Uralian  families 
of  mankind    formerly    possessed    the   Turanian  system  of 


THE  MONOGAMIAN  FAMILY.  48 1 

consanguinity,  and  that  it  fell  into  desuetude  under  mo- 
nogamy. Such,  however,  would  be  the  presumption  from 
the  body  of  ascertained  facts.  All  the  evidence  points  in 
this  direction  so  decisively  as  to  exclude  any  other  hypo- 
thesis. Firstly.  The  organization  into  gentes  had  a  natural 
origin  in  the  punaluan  family,  where  a  group  of  sisters 
married  to  each  other's  husbands  furnished,  with  their 
children  and  descendants  in  the  female  line,  the  exact 
circumscription  as  well  as  the  body  of  a  gens  in  its  archaic 
form.  The  principal  branches  of  the  Aryan  family  were 
organized  in  gentes  when  first  known  historically,  sustain- 
ing the  inference  that,  when  one  undivided  people,  they 
were  thus  organized.  From  this  fact  the  further  presump- 
tion arises  that  they  derived  the  organization  through  a 
remote  ancestry  who  lived  in  that  same  punaluan  condition 
which  gave  birth  to  this  remarkable  and  wide-spread  insti- 
tution. Besides  this,  the  Turanian  system  of  consanguinity 
is  still  found  connected  with  the  gens  in  its  archaic  form 
among  the  American  aborigines.  This  natural  connection 
would  remain  unbroken  until  a  change  of  social  condition 
occurred,  such  as  monogamy  would  produce,  having  power 
to  work  its  overthrow.  Secondly.  In  the  Aryan  system  of 
consanguinity  there  is  some  evidence  pointing  to  the  same 
conclusion.  It  may  well  be  supposed  that  a  large  portion 
of  the  nomenclature  of  the  Turanian  system  would  fall  out 
under  monogamy,  if  this  system  had  previously  prevailed 
among  the  Aryan  nations.  The  application  of  its  terms  to 
categories  of  persons,  whose  relationships  would  now  be 
discriminated  from  each  other,  would  compel  their  aban- 
donment. It  is  impossible  to  explain  the  impoverished 
condition  of  the  original  nomenclature  of  the  Aryan  system 
except  on  this  hypothesis.  All  there  was  of  it  common  to 
the  several  Aryan  dialects  are  the  terms  for  father  and 
mother,  brother  and  sister,  and  son  and  daughter;  and  a 
common  term  {Sdin.,  naptar ;  Lat.,  ncpos ;  Gr.,  avetpios -^ 
applied  indiscriminately  to  nephew,  grandson,  and  cousin. 
They  could  never  have  attained  to  the  advanced  condition 
implied  by  monogamy  with  such  a  scanty  nomenclature  of 
31 


482 


ANCIENT  SOCIETY. 


blood  relationships.  But  with  a  previous  system,  analogous 
to  the  Turanian,  this  impoverishment  can  be  explained. 
The  terms  for  brother  and  sister  were  now  in  the  abstract, 
and  new  creations,  because  these  relationships  under  the 
Turanian  system  were  conceived  universally  as  elder  and 
younger ;  and  the  several  terms  were  applied  to  categories 
of  persons,  including  persons  not  own  brothers  and  sisters. 
In  the  Aryan  systerri  this  distinction  is  laid  aside,  and  for 
the  first  time  these  relationships  were  conceived  in  the 
abstract.  Under  monogamy  the  old  terms  were  inapplica- 
ble because  they  were  applied  to  collaterals.  Remains  of 
a  prior  Turanian  system,  however,  still  appear  in  the  system 
of  the  Uralian  family,  as  among  the  Hungarians,  where 
brothers  and  sisters  are  classified  into  elder  and  younger  by 
special  terms.  In  French,  also,  besides /rrrr,  and  soeur,  we 
find  ainc\  elder  brother,  pAnd  and  cadet,  younger  brother, 
and  aiiiife  and  cadcttc,  elder  and  younger  sister.  So  also  in 
Sanskrit  we  find  agrajar,  and  amujar,  and  agrajri,  and 
amujri  for  the  same  relationships  ;  but  whether  the  latter 
are  from  Sanskrit  or  aboriginal  sources,  I  am  unable  to 
state.  In  the  Aryan  dialects  the  terms  for  brother  and 
sister  are  the  same  words  dialectically  changed,  the  Greek 
having  substituted  aSaXqioZ  for  (ppocT)p.  If  common  terms 
once  existed  in  these  dialects  for  elder  and  younger  brother 
and  sister,  their  previous  application  to  categories  of 
persons  would  render  them  inapplicable,  as  an  exclusive 
distinction,  to  own  brothers  and  sisters.  The  falling  out 
from  the  Aryan  system  of  this  striking  and  beautiful  feature 
of  the  Turanian  requires  a  strong  motive  for  its  occurrence, 
which  the  previous  existence  and  abandonment  of  the 
Turanian  system  would  explain.  It  would  be  difficult  to 
find  any  other.  It  is  not  supposable  that  the  Aryan  nations 
were  without  a  term  for  grandfather  in  the  original  speech, 
a  relationship  recognized  universally  among  savage  and 
barbarous  tribes ;  and  yet  there  is  no  common  term  for 
this  relationship  in  the  Aryan  dialects.  In  Sanskrit  we 
\id.-vQ  pitanicha,  in  Greek  TrdrrTto?,  in  Latin  az'ns,  in  Russian 
djed,  in  Welsh  hendad,  which  last  is  a  compound  like  the 


THE  MONOGAMIAN  FAMILY.  483 

German  grossvader  and  the  English  grandfather.  These 
terms  are  radically  different.  But  with  a  term  under  a 
previous  system,  which  was  applied  not  only  to  the  grand- 
father proper,  his  brothers,  and  his  several  male  cousins, 
but  also  to  the  brothers  and  several  male  cousins  of  his 
grandmother,  it  could  not  be  made  to  signify  a  lineal 
grandfather  and  progenitor  under  monogamy.  Its  aban- 
donment would  be  apt  to  occur  in  course  of  time.  The 
absence  of  a  term  for  this  relationship  in  the  original 
speech  seems  to  find  in  this  manner  a  sufficient  explana- 
tion. Lastly.  There  is  no  term  for  uncle  and  aunt  in  the 
abstract,  and  no  special  terms  for  uncle  and  aunt  on  the 
father's  side  and  on  the  mother's  side  running  through  the 
Aryan  dialects.  We  find  pitroya,  Tcarpoj';,  and  patruus 
for  paternal  uncle  in  Sanskrit,  Greek,  and  Latin  ;  stryc  in 
Slavonic  for  the  same,  and  a  common  term,  earn,  ooin,  and 
oJieim  in  Anglo-Saxon,  Belgian,  and  German,  and  none  in  the 
Celtic.  It  is  equally  inconceivable  that  there  was  no  term 
in  the  original  Aryan  speech  for  maternal  uncle,  a  rela- 
tionship made  so  conspicuous  by  the  gens  among  barbar- 
ous tribes.  If  their  previous  system  was  Turanian,  there 
was  necessarily  a  terrn  for  this  uncle,  but  restricted  to  the 
own  brothers  of  the  mother,  and  to  her  several  male 
cousins.  Its  application  to  such  a  number  of  persons  in  a 
category,  many  of  whom  could  not  be  uncles  under  mo- 
nogamy, would,  for  the  reasons  stated,  compel  its  abandon- 
ment. It  is  evident  that  a  previous  system  of  some  kind 
must  have  given  place  to  the  Aryan. 

Assuming  that  the  nations  of  the  Aryan,  Semitic  and 
Uralian  families  formerly  possessed  the  Turanian  system  of 
consanguinity,  the  transition  from  it  to  a  descriptive  system 
was  simple  and  natural,  after  the  old  system,  through  mo- 
nogamy, had  become  untrue  to  descents  as  they  would  then 
exist.  Every  relationship  under  monogamy  is  specific. 
The  new  system,  formed  under  such  circumstances,  would 
describe  the  persons  by  means  of  the  primary  terms  or  a 
combination  of  them  :  as  brother's  son  for  nephew,  father's 
brother  for   uncle,  and    father's  brother's  son   for  cousin. 


484  ANCIENT  SOCIETY. 

Such  was  the  original  of  the  present  system  of  the  Aryan, 
Semitic  and  Uralian  families.  The  generalizations  they  now 
contain  were  of  later  introduction.  All  the  tribes  possess- 
ing the  Turanian  system  describe  their  kindred  by  the  same 
formula,  when  asked  in  what  manner  one  person  was  related 
to  another.  A  descriptive  system  precisely  like  the  Aryan 
always  existed  both  with  the  Turanian  and  the  Malayan, 
not  as  a  system  of  consanguinity,  for  they  had  a  permanent 
system,  but  as  a  means  of  tracing  relationships.  It  is  plain 
from  the  impoverished  conditions  of  their  nomenclatures 
that  the  Aryan,  Semitic  and  Uralian  nations  must  have 
rejected  a  prior  system  of  consanguinity  of  some  kind.  The 
conclusion,  therefore,  is  reasonable  that  when  the  monoga- 
mian  family  became  generally  established  these  nations  fell 
back  upon  the  old  descriptive  form,  always  in  use  under  the 
Turanian  system,  and  allowed  the  previous  one  to  die  out 
as  useless  and  untrue  to  descents.  This  would  be  the  natu- 
ral and  obvious  mode  of  transition  from  the  Turanian  into 
the  Aryan  system  ;  and  it  explains,  in  a  satisfactory  manner, 
the  origin  as  well  as  peculiar  character  of  the  latter. 

In  order  to  complete  the  exposition  of  the  monogamian 
family  in  its  relations  to  the  Aryan  system  of  consanguinity, 
it  will  be  necessary  to  present  this  system  somewhat  in  de- 
tail, as  has  been  done  in  the  two  previous  cases. 

A  comparison  of  its  forms  in  the  several  Aryan  dialects 
shows  that  the  original  of  the  present  system  was  purely 
descriptive.*  The  Krse,  which  is  the  typical  Aryan  form, 
and  the  Esthonian,  which  is  the  typical  Uralian,  are  still 
descriptive.  In  the  Erse  the  only  terms  for  the  blood  rela- 
tionships are  the  primary,  namely,  those  for  father  and 
mother,  brother  and  sister,  and  son  and  daughter.  All  the 
remaining  kindred  are  described  by  means  of  these  terms, 
but  commencing  in  the  reverse  order:  thus  brother,  son 
of  brother,  and  son  of  son  of  brother.  The  Aryan  system 
exhibits  the  actual  relationships  under  monogamy,  and 
assumes  that  the  paternity  of  children  is  known. 

In  course  of  time  a  method  of  description,  materially 

'  Systems  of  Consanguinity,  Table  I,  p.  7g. 


THE  MONOGAMIAN  FA  MIL  Y.  485 

different  from  the  Celtic,  was  engrafted  upon  the  new  sys- 
tem ;  but  without  changing  its  radical  features.  It  was 
introduced  by  the  Roman  civilians  to  perfect  the  framework 
of  a  code  of  descents,  to  the  necessity  for  which  we  are 
indebted  for  its  existence.  Their  improved  method  has 
been  adopted  by  the  several  Aryan  nations  among  whom 
the  Roman  influence  extended.  The  Slavonic  system  has 
some  features  entirely  peculiar  and  evidently  of  Turanian 
origin.*  To  obtain  a  knowledge  historically  of  our  present 
system  it  is  necessary  to  resort  to  the  Roman,  as  perfected 
by  the  civilians.*  The  additions  were  slight,  but  they 
changed  the  method  of  describing  kindred.  They  consisted 
chiefly,  as  elsewhere  stated,  in  distinguishing  the  relation- 
ships of  uncle  and  aunt  on  the  father's  side  from  those  on 
the  mother's  side,  with  the  invention  of  terms  to  express 
these  relationships  in  the  concrete ;  and  in  creating  a  term 
for  grandfather  to  be  used  as  the  correlative  of  iiepos.  With 
these  terms  and  the  primary,  in  connection  with  suitable 
augments,  they  were  enabled  to  systematize  the  relation- 
ships in  the  lineal  and  in  the  first  five  collateral  lines,  which 
included  the  body  of  the  kindred  of  every  individual.  The 
Roman  is  the  most  perfect  and  scientific  system  of  con- 
sanguinity under  monogamy  which  has  yet  appeared  ;  and 
it  has  been  made  more  attractive  by  the  invention  of  an 
unusual  number  of  terms  to  express  the  marriage  relation- 
ships. From  it  we  may  learn  our  own  system,  which  has 
adopted  its  improvements,  better  than  from  the  Anglo- 
Saxon  or  Celtic.  In  a  table,  at  the  end  of  this  chapter,  the 
Latin  and  Arabic  forms  are  placed  side  by  side,  as  repre- 
sentatives, respectively,  of  the  Aryan  and  Semitic  systems. 
The  Arabic  seems  to  have  passed  through  processes  similar 
to  the  Roman,  and  with  similar  results.  The  Roman  only 
will  be  explained. 

From  Ego  to  tritavus,  in  the  lineal  line,  are  six  genera- 
tions of  ascendants,  and  from  the  same  to  trincpos  are  the 
same  number  of  descendants,  in  the  description   of  which 

'  Systems  of  Consanguinitv ,  etc.,  p.  40. 

^ Fandects,  lib.  xxviii,  tit.  x,  and  Institutes  of  Justinian,  lib.  iii,  lit.  vi. 


486 


AXCIENT  SOCIETY. 


but  four  radical  terms  are  used.  If  it  were  desirable  to 
ascend  above  the  sixth  ancestor,  tritaviis  would  become  a 
new  starting-point  of  description  ;  thus,  tritavi  pater,  the 
father  of  tritaviis,  and  so  upward  to  tritavi  tritaviis,  who  is 
the  twelfth  ancestor  of  Ego  in  the  lineal  right  line,  male. 
In  our  rude  nomenclature  the  phrase  grandfather's  grand- 
father must  be  repeated  six  times  to  express  the  same  rela- 
tionship, or  rather  to  describe  the  same  person.  In  like 
manner  trincpotis  trincpos  carries  us  to  the  twelfth  descend- 
ant of  Ego  in  the  right  lineal  male  line. 

The  first  collateral  line,  male,  which  commences  with 
brother, />'(7/rr,  runs  as  follows :  Fratris  filius,  son  of  brother, 
fratris  ncpos,  grandson  of  brother,  fratris  proncpos,  great- 
grandson  of  brother,  and  on  to  fratris  trincpos,  the  great- 
grandson  of  the  great-grandson  of  the  brother  of  Ego.  If 
it  were  necessary  to  extend  the  description  to  the  twelfth 
di^szQ.xid.diViX.,  fratris  trincpos  would  become  a  second  start- 
ing-point, from  which  we  should  h.2iW&  fratris  trincpotis  tri- 
ncpos, as  the  end  of  the  series.  By  this  simple  method 
fratcr  is  made  the  root  of  descent  in  this  line,  and  every 
person  belonging  to  it  is  referred  to  him  by  the  force  of 
this  term  in  the  description  ;  and  we  know  at  once  that 
each  person  thus  described  belongs  to  the  first  collateral 
line,  male.  It  is  therefore  specific  and  complete.  In  like 
manner,  the  same  line,  female,  commences  with  sister,  soror, 
giving  for  the  series,  sororis  filia,  sister's  daughter,  sororis 
ncptis,  sister's  gv3.ndd:i\xg\\t&v,  sororis proncptis,  sister's  great- 
granddaughter,  and  on  to  sororis  trincptis,  her  sixth  de- 
scendant, and  to  sororis  trincptis  trincptis,  her  twelfth  de- 
scendant. While  the  two  branches  of  the  first  collateral 
line  originate,  in  strictness,  in  the  father, /(7/fr,  the  common 
bond  of  connection  between  them,  yet,  by  making  the 
brother  and  sister  the  root  of  descent  in  the  description, 
not  only  the  line  but  its  two  branches  are  maintained 
distinct,  and  the  relationship  of  each  person  to  Ego  is  spe- 
cialized. This  is  one  of  the  chief  excellences  of  the  sys- 
tem, for  it  is  carried  into  ail  the  lines,  as  a  purely  scientific 
method  of  distin^uishintr  and  describing  kindred. 


THE  MONOGAMIAN  FAMILY.  487 

The  second  collateral  line,  male,  on  the  father's  side, 
commences  with  father's  brother,  patriius,  and  is  composed 
of  him  and  his  descendants.  Each  person,  by  the  terms 
used  to  describe  him,  is  referred  with  entire  precision  to 
his  proper  position  in  the  line,  and  his  relationship  is  indi- 
cated specifically;  ihns,  patrni  Jilins,  son  of  paternal  uncle, 
patrui  ncpos,  grandson  of,  and  patnii  proncpos,  great-grand- 
son of  paternal  uncle,  and  on  to  patrui  trimpos,  the  sixth 
descendant  of  patruns.  If  it  became  necessary  to  extend 
this  line  to  the  twelfth  generation  we  should  have,  after- 
passing  through  the  intermediate  degrees,  patrui  triiupotis 
trinepos,  who  is  the  great-grandson  of  the  great-grandson 
oi patrui  trinepos,  the  great-grandson  of  the  great-grandson 
oi patruus.  It  will  be  observed  that  the  term  for  cousin  is 
rejected  in  the  formal  method  used  in  the  Pandects.  He  is 
described  as  patrui  filius,  but  he  was  also  called  a  brother 
patrual, /r^/^r  patriielis,  and  among  the  people  at  large  by 
the  common  term  coiisobrinus,  from  which  our  term  cousin 
is  derived.'  The  second  collateral  line,  female,  on  the 
father's  side,  commences  with  father's  sister,  aiiiita,  pater- 
nal aunt;  and  her  descendants  are  described  according  to 
the  same  general  plan  ;  thus,  amitcs  Jilia,  paternal  aunt's 
daughter,  ai/iitce  ncptis,  paternal  aunt's  granddaughter,  and 
on  to  amitce  triiuptis,  and  to  aniitce  trineptis  trineptis.  In 
this  branch  of  the  line  the  special  term  for  this  cousin,  ami- 
tina,  is  also  set  aside  for  the  descriptive  phrase  amitce  filia. 

In  like  manner  the  third  collateral  line,  male,  on  the 
father's  side  commences  with  grandfather's  brother,  who  is 
styled  patruus  viagnus,  or  great  paternal  uncle.  At  this 
point  in  the  nomenclature,  special  terms  fail,  and  compounds 
are  resorted  to,  although  the  relationship  itself  is  in  the 
concrete.  It  is  evident  that  this  relationship  was  not  dis- 
criminated until  a  comparatively  modern  period.    No  ex- 

'  Item  fratres  patrueles,  sorores  patrueles,  id  est  qui  quse-ve  ex  duobus  fratri- 
bus  progenerantur ;  item  consobrini  consobrince,  id  est  qui  quee-ve  ex  duobus 
sororibus  nascuntur  (quasi  consorini) ;  item  amitini  amitinre,  id  est  qui  quse-ve 
ex  fratre  ex  sorore  propagantur  ;  sed  fere  vulgos  istos  omnes  communi  appella- 
tione  coiisobrinus  vocat. — Pand.,  lib.  xxxviii,  tit.  x. 


488  ANCIENT  SOCIETY. 

isting  language,  so  far  as  the  inquiry  has  been  extended, 
possesses  an  original  term  for  this  relationship,  although 
without  it  this  line  cannot  be  described  except  by  the  Celtic 
method.  If  he  were  called  simply  graiidfatJicrs  brother, 
the  phrase  would  describe  a  person,  leaving  the  relationship 
to  implication  ;  but  if  he  is  styled  a  great-uncle,  it  expresses 
a  relationship  in  the  concrete.  With  the  first  person  in  this 
branch  of  the  line  thus  made  definite,  all  of  his  descendants 
are  referred  to  him,  by  the  form  of  the  description,  as  the 
root  of  descent ;  and  the  line,  the  side,  the  particular  branch, 
and  the  degree  of  the  relationship  of  each  person  are  at  once 
fully  expressed.  '  This  line  also  may  be  extended  to  the 
twelfth  descendant,  which  would  giv^e  for  the  series  patrui 
magni  filius,  son  of  the  paternal  great-uncle,  patriii  magm 
nepos,  and  on  to  patrui  inagni  trincpos,  and  ending  with 
patrui  magni  trincpotis  trincpos.  The  same  line,  female, 
commences  Avith  grandfather's  sister,  ainita  juagiia,  great 
paternal  aunt;  and  her  descendants  are  similarly  described. 

The  fourth  and  fifth  collateral  lines,  male,  on  the  father's 
side,  commence,  respectively,  with  great-grandfather's  broth- 
er, who  is  styled  patriuis  viajor,  greater  paternal  uncle,  and 
with  great-great-grandfather's  brother,  patriuis  maximus, 
greatest  paternal  uncle.  In  extending  the  series  we  have 
in  the  fourth /^/rz/z  niajoris  filins,  and  on  "lo  patrui  majoris 
trinepos  ;  and  in  the  ^{\\\  patrui  max ivii  fil ins, -ass.^  on  \.o  pa- 
trui maxivii  trincpos.  The  female  branches  commence,  re- 
spectively, with  ai/iita  major,  greater,  and  amita  maxima, 
greatest  paternal  aunt ;  and  the  description  of  persons  in 
each  follows  in  the  same  order. 

Thus  far  the  lines  have  been  on  the  father's  side  only. 
The  necessity  for  independent  terms  for  uncle  and  aunt 
on  the  mother's  side  to  complete  the  Roman  method  of 
description  is  now  apparent  ;  the  relatives  on  the  mother's 
side  being  equally  numerous,  and  entirely  distinct.  These 
terms  were  found  in  avunculus,  maternal  uncle,  and  mater- 
tera,  maternal  aunt.  In  describing  the  relatives  on  the 
mother's  side,  the  lineal  female  line  is  substituted  for  the 
male,  but  the  first  collateral  line  remains  the  same.     In  the 


THE  MONOGAMIAN  FAMIL  Y. 


489 


second  collateral  line,  male,  on  the  mother's  side,  we  have 
for  the  series  aviincuhis,  maternal  uncle,  avjmacli  films, 
avunculi  Jiepos,  and  on  to  avunciili  trinepos,  and  ending 
with  avimctili  trinepotis  trinepos.  In  the  female  branch, 
matertcra,  maternal  aunt,  inatertera;  filia,  and  on  as  before. 
The  third  collateral  line,  male  and  female,  commence, 
respectively,  with  avunculus  viagmis,  and  matertcra  magna, 
great  maternal  uncle,  and  aunt  ;  the  fourth  with  avunculus 
major,  and  matertcra  major,  greater  maternal  uncle,  and 
aunt ;  and  the  fifth  with  avunculus  maximus,  and  matertcra 
maxima,  greatest  maternal  uncle,  and  aunt.  The  descrip- 
tions of  persons  in  each  line  and  branch  are  in  form  corre- 
sponding with  those  previously  given. 

Since  the  first  five  collateral  lines  embrace  as  wide  a  circle 
of  kindred  as  it  was  necessary  to  include  for  the  practical 
objects  of  a  code  of  descents,  the  ordinary  formula  of  the 
Roman  civilians  did  not  extend  beyond  this  number. 

In  terms  for  the  marriage  relationships,  the  Latin  lan- 
guage is  remarkably  opulent,  whilst  our  mother  English 
betrays  its  poverty  by  the  use  of  such  unseemly  phrases 
as  father-in-law,  son-in-law,  brother-in-law,  step-father,  and 
step-son,  to  express  some  twenty  very  common,  and  very 
near  relationships,  nearly  all  of  which  are  provided  with 
special  terms  in  the  Latin  nomenclature. 

It  will  not  be  necessary  to  pursue  further  the  details  of 
the  Roman  system  of  consanguinity.  The  principal  and 
most  important  of  its  features  have  been  presented,  and  in 
a  manner  sufficiently  special  to  render  the  whole  intelli- 
gible. For  simplicity  of  method,  felicity  of  description, 
distinctness  of  arrangement  by  lines  and  branches,  and 
beauty  of  nomenclature,  it  is  incomparable.  It  stands  in 
its  method  pre-eminently  at  the  head  of  all  the  systems  of 
relationship  ever  perfected  by  man,  and  furnishes  one  of 
many  illustrations  that  to  whatever  the  Roman  mind  had 
occasion  to  give  organic  form,  it  placed  once  for  all  upon  a 
solid  foundation. 

No  reference  has  been  made  to  the  details  of  the  Arabic 
system  ;  but,  as  the  two  forms  are  given  in  the  Table,  the 


490  ANCIENT  SOCIETY. 

explanation  made  of  one  will  suffice  for  the  other,  to  which 
it  is  equally  applicable. 

With  its  additional  special  terms,  and  its  perfected  meth- 
od, consanguine!  are  assumed  to  be  connected,  in  virtue  of 
their  descent,  through  married  pairs,  from  common  ances- 
tors. They  arrange  themselves  in  a  lineal  and  several  collat- 
eral lines  ;  and  the  latter  are  perpetually  divergent  from  the 
former.  These  are  necessary  consequences  of  monogamy. 
The  relationship  of  each  person  to  the  central  Ego  is  ac- 
curately defined  and,  except  as  to  those  who  stand  in  an 
identical  relationship,  is  kept  distinct  from  every  other 
by  means  of  a  special  term  or  descriptive  phrase.  It  also 
implies  the  certainty  of  the  parentage  of  every  individual, 
which  monogamy  alone  could  assure.  Moreover,  it  de- 
scribes the  relationships  in  the  monogamian  family  as  they 
actually  exist.  Nothing  can  be  plainer  than  that  this  form 
of  marriage  made  this  form  of  the  family,  and  that  the  lat- 
ter created  this  system  of  consanguinity.  The  three  are 
necessary  parts  of  a  whole  where  the  descriptive  system  is 
exclusive.  What  we  know  by  direct  observation  to  be  true 
with  respect  to  the  monogamian  family,  its  law  of  marriage 
and  its  system  of  consanguinity,  has  been  shown  to  be 
equally  true  with  respect  to  the  punaluan  family,  its  law  of 
marriage  and  its  system  of  consanguinity  ;  and  not  less  so 
of  the  consanguine  family,  its  form  of  marriage  and  its 
system  of  consanguinity.  Any  of  these  three  parts  being 
given,  the  existence  of  the  other  two  with  it,  at  some  one 
time,  may  be  deduced  with  certainty.  If  any  difference 
could  be  made  in  favor  of  the  superior  materiality  of  any 
one  of  the  three,  the  preference  would  belong  to  systems 
of  consanguinity.  They  have  crystallized  the  evidence 
declaring  the  marriage  law  and  the  form  of  the  family  in 
the  relationship  of  every  individual  person  ;  thus  preserving 
not  only  the  highest  evidence  of  the  fact,  but  as  many  con- 
curring declarations  thereto  as  there  are  members  united 
by  the  bond  of  consanguinity.  It  furnishes  a  test  of  the 
high  rank  of  a  domestic  institution,  which  must  be  sup- 
posed incapable  of  design  to  pervert  the  truth,  and  which, 


THE  MONOGAMIAN  FAMILY.  49 1 

therefore,  may  be  trusted  implicitly  as  to  whatever  it  neces- 
sarily teaches.  Finally,  it  is  with  respect  to  systems  of 
consanguinity  that  our  information  is  most  complete. 

The  five  successive  forms  of  the  family,  mentioned  at  the 
outset,  have  now  been  presented  and  explained,  with  such 
evidence  of  their  existence,  and  such  particulars  of  their 
structure  as  our  present  knowledge  furnishes.  Although 
the  treatment  of  each  has  been  general,  it  has  touched  the 
essential  facts  and  attributes,  and  established  the  main  prop- 
osition, that  the  family  commenced  in  the  consanguine,  and 
grew,  through  successive  stages  of  development,  into  the 
monogamian.  There  is  nothing  in  this  general  conclusion 
which  might  not  have  been  anticipated  from  a  priori  con- 
siderations; but  the  difficulties  and  the  hindrances  which 
obstructed  its  growth  are  seen  to  have  been  far  greater  than 
would  have  been  supposed.  As  a  growth  with  the  ages  of 
time,  it  has  shared  in  all  the  vicissitudes  of  human  experi- 
ence, and  now  reveals  more  expressively,  perhaps,  than  any 
other  institution,  the  graduated  scale  of  human  progress 
from  the  abyss  of  primitive  savagery,  through  barbarism,  to 
civilization.  It  brings  us  near  to  the  daily  life  of  the  human 
family  in  the  different  epochs  of  its  progressive  develop- 
ment, indicating,  in  some  measure,  its  hardships,  its  strug- 
gles and  also  its  victories,  when  different  periods  are  con- 
trasted. We  should  value  the  great  institution  of  the  family, 
as  it  now  exists,  in  some  proportion  to  the  expenditure  of 
time  and  of  intelligence  in  its  production  ;  and  receive  it  as 
the  richest  legacy  transmitted  to  us  by  ancient  society, 
because  it  embodies  and  records  the  highest  results  of  its 
varied  and  prolonged  experience. 

When  the  fact  is  accepted  that  the  family  has  passed 
through  four  successive  forms,  and  is  now  in  a  fifth,  the 
question  at  once  arises  whether  this  form  can  be  permanent 
in  the  future.  The  only  answer  that  can  be  given  is,  that 
it  must  advance  as  society  advances,  and  change  as  society 
changes,  even  as  it  has  done  in  the  past.  It  is  the  creature 
of  the  social  system,  and  will  reflect  its  culture.  As  the 
monogamian  family  has  improved  greatly  since  the  com- 


492 


ANCIENT  SOCIETY. 


mencement  of  civilization,  and  very  sensibly  in  modern 
times,  it  is  at  least  supposable  that  it  is  capable  of  still  far- 
ther improvement  until  the  equality  of  the  sexes  is  attained. 
Should  the  monogamian  family  in  the  distant  future  fail  to 
answer  the  requirements  of  society,  assuming  the  contin- 
uous progress  of  civilization,  it  is  impossible  to  predict  the 
nature  of  its  successor. 


THE  MONOGAMIAN  FAMIL  V. 


49: 


>.>> 

>< 

68 

~ 

•0   S   3    0   3   0   0 

c 

0  ' 

2  M^ 

><  -^  >>a-5  0 

^0 

c 
2 

-a 

S  = 

^l-    •'l^    ""^    ""T! 
^CW:crtCrtC3 

Cj303_SC0-a         ^^S3>>tn 

i-<^  0  B"^  0  VI.         E>*.-:7  rt  B-:t 

H 

"m 

W'-'S- 

co  =  oT3c-aort 

•5 

,    0  °- 

ii   u   V 

o-£  0 

>. 

e  = 

'S'o 'm'o 'm'o  0*2  O^o  ° 

6 

: 

>£5 

c 

Sv2  E 

:  -o-a-o 

c  c  c 

rt   rf   C3 

Ji-c 

x: 

gl'  ■s"°-||"o-|„"3's  u^o Ill's  1, 

-C  *e 

C3c3c   =   c3c3c3 

0 

0 

=  '^5-  =  2  =  2s=;t:5'^'=2 

& 

l;  2  u  t  t.  rt  s 
M  bd  be  bC  bJ9«  g 

M-O  uiT:  m-O  ul'O  ai-a  miax 

i 

.a 

S'^-S^  g-S  g-S-^  g  ^-Si  g-S 

0 

c 

'^ 

< 

.     .     .     .lis 

a 

.- J3'"j3 

0. 
IS 
a 

■■a._ 

•5      =     *J      =     4J 

C.-2  c.-S  c 

'.S       .       .       , 

.a:    .             ji  _    .     j3      .« 
C-  rt           -Q  ^      ._  c  «  B--  3 

(2 

■023. -._ 

B   3 

-°-S.-2  c.S'c.S  c.S'c.S 

■-  .-2  -  rS  -^  -2  -^  :5  -^  :2  -^ 

3 

rt 

■^t5«-|.-2^.-2'^-3-^.g«J-5:^ 

3-5 

-3  ^-a  u 
"2  •  -  ."2  •- 

T3-3 

Eccccccccccc 

■e  :2  r2  .-£  :2  :s  .-2 '^  .-e  3  .-2  "^ 

1 

5"^ 
B    B 

.^2  s-.a  8.-2:3 .-2 3-^:2  |-^  g:2-J 

-5^ 

u,     •  ^ 

•    •!• 

•      fe     -S  c"2 

•       -g-S-  :  5    •      •    •=!       • 

*J        be  0   rt 

-r  ^ 

"  j=    . 

.    .    .    -agiil 

s   ?^           •     ■°  -S 

c 

c 

e 

"         J         TJT3 

u 

§•£ 

"5  0 

S§H-22 

.i.e3c5Mib«bJ)- 

M 

• 

io3                ii           "55^20.3 

.^    v.t_    X  3  3  .  h  _i.->-  3  g 

1lllllllsill|i 

g'5.Si  M&)S)bi-s  g  5.si-5 

c 
rt 

b«      bjc  btci  c 

^         ^        -3T) 

"5  0 

■^|:ut.b.b.    =-  -  - 

0 

0 

IC' 

W)      to 

&  & 

J2 

s 

X3 

j_                       tfi_yi             t-        u. 

0. 

• 

'1  "^g.2&8-  '.§    '^S-S 

Lc 

_3 

• 

• 

3.-B?^g.S.§§    .2:3,5.2  e-g. 

Ul 

<"   rt 

o-S  »>  a  »>  c/^  <"  2 

icEES  3  c  aa  .'^^'*="*  =  = 

(5 

5S 

2  ^ 

3.S 

0.  E 

32aaooccsc== 

I 

s 

u 

vg^^^^S"  "  '    gig'''' 

^J3    t;    >- 

>   > 

x:=  u  oj  t.  i-j^xzlS-n-c 

2 

c 

2 

c  « 

a  a  P.O. 

rt  rt 

g=tcccD.D.rtnrtBi:s 

(A 

■1  jj 

S 

•     2     "5) 

bJ}  0  J5 

.     "^       .              ... 

s 
0 

s<2 

s  ■ 

•     •     •     -ssi^l 

0 

B 
0 

•a 

•n 

M  =  ^  -S 
^  2  -  0      1. 

'u                 -£0     ■ 

■5           il.S 
^            2  2-S  0 

• 

till 

t/i 

J        .     .^      X  3  2        ■        .  =    .  § 

■o5333nrt'^™              uibCbOcC 

cjgg.S.S&^ti-     .g§i322 
■5!."'                                  wg-o-obioba 

0 

s 

M)bX 

>S  S 

ki 

c 

u 

Q 

2 

c  c 

=|||i| 

0 

tio" 

=   =    &, 

febi>S  s 

g-CbibjObO      bo*'""- 

Xi 

•5 

j3 

x>                             'S'S 

M    CT 

m  ■<)■  mvo 

^.00 

0\  0 

M  ct  m  ■.}•  mvo  t^co  0  0  «  w 

m 

*  10 

vo  t^oo  CT>  0  M  «  ro  *  mvo  M»  o>  0 

^ 

nnHr<HHHnH««« 

« 

w 

c*  w  «  n  ct.)mcocOfOf^rorotoro.j- 

494 


ANCIENT  SOCIETY. 


>> 

>. 

>. 

>> 

g 

E 

•'•"•"•"•'•"•S 

E 

*    - 

E 

" 

g 

■_4; 

3 

c 

3 

c 

3 

3 

= 

:  : 

w 

'rt 

."« 

V 

c 

3 

£ 

, 

A 

■s 

c] 

-  « 

rt 

0 
•3 

>.'° 

"o     "o 

p. 

"o     "o 

.  E 

"o     "3 

.  E 

"o      "o 

rt 

E  S 

s    S^'s 

o       Jiv-  o 

H 

7.  a 

>> 

E 

3        rt 

a 

c 

C    O    o    r-    O    ^    3 

°  -4 1  s  11 

S 

o 

2     sg^ 

s 

o 

•S       f   °   3 

=       2  9"^ 

=  ° 

73 

c 

c 

3 

g 

Su- 
es o 

3 
O 

°^  g  2  =  rt 

°  u 

J!^ 

■^"^ 

"rt 

fc-a  g  S  S-a 

'n'O 

u-c  °  S  S-o 

o  be 

§^  «  3  §  5  g  « 

II 

'3'°-S)J'=lo"o"3 

3**- 
^-    C 

o   ° 

il'o-E^'^ 

0 

l^l'sl^'! 

a  3 

C-^    =    g    C    3    C    3 

E  -J 

g-^n3o^oJ5 

2    3 

Ex 

3 
C 

'%■ 

«    3    g    B   g    B 

•Sx  g-o  g-a 

6 

.      .       .- 

c 

.2- 
IS 

e 
.2 

_rt 

s 

si-s«il-2^ 
E-:  iji-l^j 

X  <rt  ^  4S-—  ^  .— 

E 

3  S 

.-             ___'5  E 

S      Jj  'ti  "  5  ^ 
•6..  S3|SS 

.•3 

J! 

_   3 

■«.-e 

2s1.S'3.2 

•3 

•a 

3 

•  -lis 

:^-^2  -.-2- 

X^    3.5    3.2 

rt 

■2-^ 

'e-s 

e2 

—  2"^  2 

-^  '^  .-5  "^  .-2  -^ 

3 

■B 

.^  -J  X  X  X  X 

E  S 

cpc--,c  =  cc 
•2  ^■^■g.-23.-23 

E  "v^ 

C   3 

C-r^  C    C    C    S 

C 

3•-^  3    3    3    a 

as 

?^  rt 

-£  « 15  "n  r5  *_o  .-=  13 

2  « 

■2  5 -^'S. -2 3. -2 3 

.J 

x-s.-2x:2-.3 

•S 

c 

•S 

3 
3 

u 

c 

c 

-      i 

■^ 

>. 

42 

•  3 

•  rt 

.   3 

•  rt 

s 

bo 

§1 

E 

3 

c 

E 

-      "- 

■" 

" 

Cn  T3 

u 

<u 

o 

na-o 

1„                  w. 

i^              »*-. 

•  rt 

t*-.                   *«« 

S 

"o     ^     "o 

J4          (U    O  - 

c 

=    S 
tJoM 

0. 

2     "->"  " 

w^        n        V  o  *^ 

g 

o     <*«       o 

1  ^°-s 

f^i 

■S  o  -f  ?.  -a  -a  2  2 

o       -O       5        3 

o 

^^^;S  3  = 

'='3^-S)g.3 

3 

o 

^i_  5   „   3 

c 

3 

1^ 

g'-B^-ii-g 

c 

3 

c 
o 

3V,.. 

rt  o 

o 

0*0  ="5!  0.3 

E^ 

C    3 

Z  o 
1)   J, 

Ex 

0 

=  -f  ,  rt  -a  -a  «  2 

^3-3lS&« 

•I" 

o.'? 

2'?-S^   MlMM- 

S.^ 

S  ?-o^  Sa  ti  M- 

E^ 

g'5 

-6  a  bJJ  boSo' 

c 

■? 

•ax  bJ5  bio  ba' 

c 

.     .     . 

• 

►3 

o 

.S         o-a 

_c 

« 

• 

*- 

.h         •  S-3 

X 

=*  t^.a^g* 

.2* 

B 
U 

a  Q, 
«j  I) 
s  c 
2  2 

.3 

r 

o 

m  3 

3.- 
2S 

n  rt 

o.  a. 

uT  3       u  g  -3  g  g 
2:3.2.2  o.  a.  S  o 

e's 

c3  rt 

3.-  rt  rt  a  a.  5  o 
.S;3:j=-.3  o  u  £  C. 
lA'^vCiS   3   3   P.O. 

o 

>! 

lA    3 
3.- 

3    3 

3    3 
3    3 
>    > 

u)  -J       aj  o  w  --  c 

2:3.2.2  P.  D.  3  o 

SESS   3   3   P.P. 

•  I.. 2:3 

2  2 

«;  4) 

«  rt 
E  S 

^  u  p  a  c  a 
•x-x  g-S-S  2 
<x<c  3  C  ft  o< 

5SEI5  c  c  d-D. 

■a              t". 

."2   .       .  u 

"o             Ir. 

■^          S 

•  c    •       ■  i! 

•  3    •        •  JJ 

•  a    •       •  iJ 

rt        h       .C 

3      V.     ^ 

=^      h     J5 

2      h     X 

.  >-• 

.       -g       2        M 

»J3         _2i          bJC 

-p      i!      bi 

•^      2      tb 

ij 

3        J=    C    3 

S   "   I.   5  T3   c   c 

C'C  =  =  rt  rt  ^i« 

3       -^3    2 

3      •?  =  2 

3      -?  3  2 

o 

fcU  c 

•13 

C 

3 

•^   u-S   d   3^^ 

^  •€=„  a  -a  -o  i;  2 

3-=3-3i§&a. 

^ 

■•-. 

•a 

•  c 

rt 

jU 

X         M  p   rt 

(ij 

II 

2^ 

-J 

1 

jj 
■? 

■? 

S  S:  ^'O  2  S 
-S,  K  -0  -a  2  2 
3-3  P.  g  M  bb 

J3 

3 

3 

ti  ^1  ?. -0  3  C 
-Siii-a-a  2  B 

3-3   i   I   «  & 

o 

rt 

U  "i-« 

•^ 

g   g-S-S   &Mbi= 

U   'l-l 

O    0 

rt  rt  1-,  u  *-.  *-» 
"0*0   tC  bfi  fcC  bf 

'."' 

O 

o 

•a -a  bo  bo  M* 

M  b« 

U    IJ 

j:^ 

t.  "t* 

c 

-S« 

h  *^ 

o 

rt 

u  u 

o  o 

^ 

n    O 

1 

ui: 

c  — 

si 

-^i 

(^   w 

u 

'u 

"u 

s 

"Ui 

!J 

"u 

-C  ^ 

•   .« 

4> 

^ 

0 

•r 

i. 

5 

r 

a 

g 

M     C* 

m  -^  mvo  t^oo  o\  0  M  « 

m  *  inys  IS.OO  OS  o  M  C4 

e^  ^ 

tnvo 

^«oo  o«  0  H  ei 

m  -.frmvo 

IvOO    0>  0    M    « 

■♦>«• 

♦  •«• 

^^-c^-^ioioioioio 

lO  m  tf)  m  mv6  ^O^O^O^^O^^^o^O   txK^.itNrNt^ 

t^  «>  t^  t-  f.00  »  00 

THE  MONOGAMIAN  FAMIL  Y.  495 


E 


^  — ,  .    E  c 
«j  c  ■"  "    1-3" 


l-'S-  -   ^    ^      w,     f  E  M=      u,  |-     E 


E  bo' 
3    S'o- 


r  S 


V  c      — 


=  ii=c.l-.  =  l1^=     IY'1   ~    %    IB1      .e 


E  0'0'S  S'Soo'o  S'o'o'o  S-&°"o   I'o'o'o  S  -g,   o  'S  Sj'o'o 
•"CCC"  =  C3SCCCrtCC3   -Sccc"   3   3   ^  '^.  c  a 


j2  .      .      .      .^  .      .      .       .  g 

<  .     .-  "       .      E         -5'= 


E'= 
.-  E:3 


.E^  .-•:2  .-2      6 

"E"!  '^E        ••3     ?     E 


:5  c 


3  c  c- =.=.=  =2  =  = --^-S  5     ;=,ccc-      E     .=     .5.;;-S  c 


C    C 


C    =    C    =    C    C    =    C    S    C    C    CJJ    CSC  i=CCCC  y  -  >-_c    ^    ►. 


c  cW)-S3  g  T"  .c=  W)3  rt  r  f 

°u  &o«    ^&,  ^  ^  ^M^,  E&  ^  ^  5 

o       °  -o  U  O  M^  ^      o  o  ^  o  .-  -■"  M      o  o  M  o  .-  .^ 

g-u3Srt-2  -3      g-o-  S  rt  B-rt      g  -o-^  S  i  S 

— >_  ''■?"--^  =  -u,'"5=:2'^rt  c^^33  ti  "O  2c^°  Sp  tj  -a  -o 

Sc|^l^g^Sci^O«^  V--H  I  g  >^  =  =  ^^  =  §  > 

tXi  i^   bfl  tJO  bO-O   bt  tJO  to  X   W)  bJD  tJD-O   bob/)  P.iiibflboa^T3  bO  boSw-bjO  boS  'O  bjQ  b/) 


'  " 

.  .     s 

-    , 

hi 

c 

3 

•30  = 

•-  c  c 

j:  =  C 

°  c  S 

u 

^^3 

.2g-o^._cao       uco  S2os  «       o.      §      iSc 

3U.O    Ecp.  =  «=gS.rtg     S.      "-^S-S'    E     S     S.V. 

2—    U   t>         .,   ..         C._  cjju  <CC0.  '*^         '^         '^  n. 


,■5  c      59c 


.3ag     Ecp.3u:gQ.rtg      o,       "-Jg-g 


U'c 


«  =  d      5  w>         «c 


mm::    E  « -  ;    e  =  -fj.  g  _    ^     .2,     °     .£,  S  «  s'  E 


2  B    P    C         3.-  22  "^S  r?CCC    3.^ 

■jE         E„„3-3         SS  wE         E,,      J;^-3-3 


V  ' 


S  2  2-    c  S 

■s'ss"    >>         11  «  n-  =  'E     'S     "S 

nnrtrJrt 


cc  SS  CCfc;t:>>  >2 

cc  CC  rtrtrtrtrtrt  ric 


h  c 


c  c  ^       c 

C  2      i*  o  5  °  """  •■"''  "o  c  ° 

S^3       r-g"^      ii^'2      -I^J-a-a  «.a  5  ^S-S 

S-tV,  rt       5  °  c      X  MJ5       o  "1  c  -v.  ..'    ■  -i  •  "^  •..""-.- 


_o>2j.      ««^i-£  ,-^rt^-=J=-"  V:^31iS--6«cEEf^E•3►J 


O'S E  ^S-"--=i.'5  3"=Ss         ErcEKSS^E^'"! 


•?,-""• -6 -;■" 


y  V  '^  -'^  '^-  -'^  *>-  -'^  jS 

o -^ -5  " -e  a -5  i^'fZ 

■^  o   O.-  0--   o.-  ^-' 


ISz  ■:  ^  z  z  z  z   i;is;3s;;[i.-£:s:s5    rt-c2-£ 

OOGOOOOOOOOOOOO^QNO^O^O^OsOHO^Ok        ONOOOOO         O         O         00 


496 


ANCIENT  SOCIETY. 


^SfeiS^S^^^S66SEB 

M^-*         bfi^^         t:;^*-'         ^^  ^  (-^^j  C2^*^ 

v->i5v.>^<_,,«>«^  §-c  6  °o  c  °  o 

§  ^  I  a  ^  s  §  £■  i  «  S  1  I  ^  i  I        I--       |, 

^    i    I    "s    &    ^    «    °  I  -3  1  f    I  s  ^  ^         J         ^^- 

^  I  i  I  "^  I :-  -s  &  I  ^  g  1 1  ^  §     r^^    h^ 

lo  E  •       •      •       •      • 

»«  —  a 

.      .           -             .    .-    •«  S      .  'E  '^      . 

.-  :S           ^  '5  'g  «  .-  I  -s      ... 

.  .-  is  S      ^  I  i  .  -g  I  I   .  i  I  I    .       . 

IS    :g    g    rt    '«    :^    I    ^  I  ij  -3  -^    I  "^  S  c        .-       •   .- 

I  I  i  .1  I  I  !  I  I  -  I  I  .i  I  I  I    ■  L-    -ri;^ 

S,     i      c      c      -      E     .5     .S  .^  2  c  c     :^  2  .S  .5             «-5'--s,.-      "ES 

S      S      S      5      S     .3     .S     .S  ^  J  _§  _§     ^  .S  .5  .S     "o'E  E-^.S  E  S  E-o.S 


3        V."-" 
-u         to       ^        1^ 


4i         M        V       .^ 


M       ^ 


^         W)       rt 


M      ^ 


o,   c;* 


Ml       M       o.      "O       "W!       M 


g     S     S     2 


S       S       c 


J.         3        ^ 


«        M       ^         M)       ^        "1" 


4i       bo      .i 


;;;;'    bjo    i     w    ^ 


M      _         Wl       *j         ho 


M       ^       ^ 

•^      E      ° 


S     -H     -.3 


3        „ 


3        *i        *i        ^ 


E     J 


_c3-r 

.  ?  nl  t.  u 


■•^■pE 


-.1 

• 

a 

Cl. 

• 

• 

») 

S 

a 

3 

• 

socer  magnus 
socrus  magnus 
uxor  b,  marita 
socer   . 

si 

rt 

X 

■c 

irnS' 

E 

E 

6 

kt 

3 

3 

n  d 

E  S 

l->     3 

E 

E 

> 

O 

•i. 

in 

!;!« 

^ 

^ 

to 

•a 

. 

i2     ij2     i2 


■Z     -^     -Z     -Z     -^     -^ 


=  ■55   "E  ^E 


-  T3    U 

rt-S 


3  -.i 


J«     ^ 


rt  t-  jrt  3  j5  rt 


~  rt  "  h  " 


hO^ 


tj:S  o-S  o-£  o-S 


'*-.  -C    "  _ff     r/l    *-     O    *J     O    " 

EiEg 


"•^  -"jS  «^  ■^  g 


J3    U, 

Eg 


3   °   S   S'w 

=<  E  S  E  2 


'  --S  "-S  2 V    ■"  o  2  2 

!•-  o,:!  o  i2 
;  "1  g  ■/!  g  71  u 

:Msise33 


'S  =  S 


to     vo       r^ 


C4  N  C4  C4  rO  CO  fO 


THE  MONOGAMIAN  FAMIL  Y 


497 


o 

■3 

-2 

>N          >>. 

B     B-   ;^ 

5 is'  iliii-3  -ri* 

^ 

J3 

w 

< 

C 

a 

rt 

c 

"rt 

o 

.       "-     ._      .„-5-3'-3    . 

Ei:  S  S  2.=  c.pc.  =  .=  g  1  E 

0 

rt 

a 

S           u 2 

c 

1.      «  >.      "^        .                      " 

rt 

rt 

J 

;£ 

fc  **  5 

o  *^  c        •        • 

o 

t/1                 S  «  5 

.,  -  =  rt               ^iS 

>  =  aa.ucji  c  3       Mi  >  >  n  o  o! 

^^  -^          ^-^ 

'r,  \J                  k              .             .             . 

-Ci-^<;   ^   ?   S 

•   •   •  ^stl'K-J  •  •§•!  • 

o 

d, 

o 

•     •    •  =:iiS£id  ■    io^ 

_3 

y 

y 

g..   _-|||^=    |,  =  .||J^^ 

s-  -  -  g-si      -S       s  ^  a 

M   N  m  -1-  rnvo  t^co  o  o  •-«  «  rn  ■^  uTO  c^ 

m^Tmmmwwmmmm^hhmmm 

32 


CHAPTER   VI. 

SEQUENCE   OF   INSTITUTIONS   CONNECTED   WITH  THE 
FAMILY. 

Sequence  in  part  Hypothetical. — Relation  of  these  Institutions 
IN  THE  Order  of  their  Origination. — Evidence  of  their  Origination 
IN  the  Order  named. — Hypothesis  of  Degradation  considered. — The 
Antiquity  of  Mankind. 

It  remains  to  place  in  their  relations  the  customs  and 
institutions  which  have  contributed  to  the  growth  of  the 
family  through  successive  forms.  Their  articulation  in  a 
sequence  is  in  part  hypothetical;  but  there  is  an  intimate 
and  undoubted  connection  between  them. 

This  sequence  embodies  the  principal  social  and  domestic 
institutions  which  have  influenced  the  growth  of  the  fam- 
ily from  the  consanguine  to  the  monogamian.'  They  are  to 
be  understood  as  originating  in  the  several  branches  of  the 
human  family  substantially  in  the  order  named,  and  as  ex- 
isting generally  in  these  branches  while  in  the  correspond- 
ing status. 

First  Stage  of  Sequence. 
I.  Promiscuous  Intercourse. 

II.  Intermarriage  of  Brothers  and  Sisters,  ozun  and  col- 
lateral, in  a  Group  :  Giving, — 
III.   The  Consanguine  Family.     [First  Stage  of  the  Fam- 
ily) :   Givitig, — 

*  It  is  a  revision  of  the  sequence  presented  in  Systems  of  Consanguinity,  etc., 
p.  480. 


SEQUENCE  OF  INSTITUTIONS.  499 

IV.   The  Malayan  System  of  Consanguinity  and  Affinity. 
Second  Stage  of  Sequence. 

V.    TJie  Organization  npon  the  basis  of  Sex,  and  the  Pu- 
naliian  Custom,  tending  to  check  the  intermarriage 
of  brothers  and  sisters :  Giving, — 
VI.   The  Punaluan  Family.   {Second  Stage  of  the  Family)  : 

Giving, — 
VII.   The  Organization  into  Gentes,zvhicJi  excluded  brothers 
and  sisters  frojn  the  marriage  relation  :  Giving, — ■ 
VIII.    TJie   Turanian  and  Ganowdnian    System  of  Consan- 
guinity and  Affinity. 
Third  Stage  of  Sequence. 

IX.  Increasing  Influence  of  Gentile  Organization  and  im- 
provement in  the  arts  of  life,  advancing  a  portion 
of  mankind  into  the  lozver  Status  of  barbarism  : 
Giving, — 
X.  Alarriage  betzvccn  Single  Pairs,  but  without  an   ex- 
clusive cohabitation  :   Giving, — 
XI.    The  Syndyasmian  Family.  {Third  Stage  of  the  Fam- 
ily.) 
Fourth  Stage  of  Sequence. 
XII.  Pastoral  life  on  the  plains  in  limited  areas  :   Giving, — 
XIII.    The   Patriarchal  Family.      {Fourth,   but    exceptional 
Stage  of  the  Family.) 
Fifth  Stage  of  Sequence. 
XIV.  Rise  of  Property,  and  settlement  of  lineal  succession  to 

estates  :   Giving, — 
XV.    The  Monogamian  Family.     (  Fifth  Stage  of  the  Fam- 
ily ) :  Giving, — 
XVI.    The  Aryan,  Semitic  and   Uralian  system  of  Consan- 
guinity and  Affinity  ;  and  causing  the  overthrow  of 
the  Ttiranian. 
A  few  observations  upon  the  foregoing  sequence  ot  cus- 
toms and  institutions,  for  the  purpose  of  tracing  their  con- 
nection and  relations,  will  close  this  discussion  of  the  growth 
of  the  family. 

Like  the  successive  geological  formations,  the  tribes  of 


500 


ANCIENT  SOCIETY. 


mankind  may  be  arranged,  according  to  their  relative  con- 
ditions, into  successive  strata.  When  thus  arranged,  they 
reveal  with  some  degree  of  certainty  the  entire  range  of 
human  progress  from  savagery  to  civilization.  A  thorough 
study  of  each  successive  stratum  will  develop  whatever  is 
special  in  its  culture  and  characteristics,  and  yield  a  definite 
conception  of  the  whole,  in  their  differences  and  in  their 
relations.  When  this  has  been  accomplished,  the  successive 
stages  of  human  progress  will  be  definitely  understood. 
Time  has  been  an  important  factor  in  the  formation  of  these 
strata;  and  it  must  be  measured  out  to  each  ethnical  pe- 
riod in  no  stinted  measure.  Each  period  anterior  to  civili- 
zation necessarily  represents  many  thousands  of  years. 

Promiscuous  Intercourse. — This  expresses  the  lowest  con- 
ceivable stage  of  savagery — it  represents  the  bottom  of 
the  scale.  Man  in  this  condition  could  scarcely  be  distin- 
guished from  the  mute  animals  by  whom  he  was  sur- 
rounded. Ignorant  of  marriage,  and  living  probably  in  a 
horde,  he  was  not  only  a  savage,  but  possessed  a  feeble 
intellect  and  a  feebler  moral  sense.  His  hope  of  elevation 
rested  in  the  vigor  of  his  passions,  for  he  seems  always  to 
have  been  courageous  ;  in  the  possession  of  hands  physi- 
cally liberated,  and  in  the  improvable  character  of  his 
nascent  mental  and  moral  powers.  In  corroboration  of  this 
view,  the  lessening  volume  of  the  skull  and  its  increasing 
animal  characteristics,  as  we  recede  from  civilized  to  sav- 
age man,  deliver  some  testimony  concerning  the  necessary 
inferiority  of  primitive  man.  Were  it  possible  to  reach 
this  earliest  representative  of  the  species,  we  must  descend 
very  far  below  the  lowest  savage  now  living  upon  the 
earth.  The  ruder  flint  implements  found  over  parts  of  the 
earth's  surface,  and  not  used  by  existing  savages,  attest  the 
extreme  rudeness  of  his  condition  after  he  had  emerged 
from  his  primitive  habitat,  and  commenced,  as  a  fisherman, 
his  spread  over  continental  areas.  It  is  with  respect  to  this 
primitive  savage,  and  with  respect  to  him  alone,  that  pro- 
miscuity may  be  inferred. 

It  will  be  asked  whether  any  evidence  exists  of  this  ante- 


SEQUENCE  OF  INSTITUTIONS.  50I 

cedent  condition.  As  an  answer,  it  may  be  remarked  that 
the  consanguine  family  and  the  Malayan  system  of  consan- 
guinity presuppose  antecedent  promiscuity.  It  was  limited, 
not  unlikely,  to  the  period  when  mankind  were  frugivorous 
and  within  their  primitive  habitat,  since  its  continuance 
would  have  been  improbable  after  they  became  fishermen 
and  commenced  their  spread  over  the  earth  in  dependence 
upon  food  artificially  acquired.  Consanguine  groups  would 
then  form,  with  intermarriage  in  the  group  as  a  necessity, 
resulting  in  the  formation  of  consanguine  families.  At  all 
events,  the  oldest  form  of  society  which  meets  us  in  the 
past  through  deduction  from  systems  of  consanguinity  is 
this  family.  It  would  be  in  the  nature  of  a  compact  on  the 
part  of  several  males  for  the  joint  subsistence  of  the  group, 
and  for  the  defense  of  their  common  wives  against  the 
violence  of  society.  In  the  second  place,  the  consanguine 
family  is  stamped  with  the  marks  of  this  supposed  antece- 
dent state.  It  recognized  promiscuity  within  defined  lim- 
its, and  those  not  the  narrowest,  and  it  points  through  its 
organism  to  a  worse  condition  against  which  it  interposed  a 
shield.  Between  the  consanguine  family  and  the  horde 
living  in  promiscuity,  the  step,  though  a  long  one,  does 
not  require  an  intermediate  condition.  If  such  existed,  no 
known  trace  of  it  remains.  The  solution  of  this  question, 
however,  is  not  material.  It  is  sufficient,  for  the  present  at 
least,  to  have  gained  the  definite  starting-point  far  down  in 
savagery  marked  out  by  the  consanguine  family,  which  car- 
ries back  our  knowledge  of  the  early  condition  of  mankind 
well  toward  the  primitive  period. 

There  were  tribes  of  savages  and  even  of  barbarians 
known  to  the  Greeks  and  Romans  who  are  represented  as 
living  in  promiscuity.  Among  them  were  the  Auseans  of 
North  Africa,  mentioned  by  Herodotus,'  the  Garamantes 
of  ^Ethiopia,  mentioned  by  Pliny,''  and  the  Celts  of  Ireland, 

'  f.aliv  Se  ETtiHoivov  rcSv  yvvaiHcov  TtoiEOvrai,  ovrs  dwoiHsovTE? 
KvyjvrjSov  re  /mdyojiievoi. — Lib.  iv,  c.  180. 

-  Garamantes  matrimonium  exsortes  passim  cum  femines  degunt. — A^a(,  Hisi., 
lib.  V,  c.  8. 


502 


ANCIENT  SOCIETY, 


mentioned  by  Strabo.'  The  latter  repeats  a  simnar  state- 
ment concerning  the  Arabs."  It  is  not  probable  that  any 
people  within  the  time  of  recorded  human  observation  have 
lived  in  a  state  of  promiscuous  intercourse  like  the  grega- 
rious animals.  The  perpetuation  of  such  a  people  from  the 
infancy  of  mankind  would  evidently  have  been  impossible. 
The  cases  cited,  and  many  others  that  might  be  added,  are 
better  explained  as  arising  under  the  punaluan  family,  which, 
to  the  foreign  observer,  with  limited  means  of  observation, 
would  afford  the  external  indications  named  by  these  au- 
thors. Promiscuity  may  be  deduced  theoretically  as  a  neces- 
sary condition  antecedent  to  the  consanguine  family;  but 
it  lies  concealed  in  the  misty  antiquity  of  mankind  beyond 
the  reach  of  positive  knowledge. 

II.  Intermarriage  of  Brothers  and  Sisters,  own  ajid  collat- 
eral, in  a  Group. — In  this  form  of  marriage  the  family  had  its 
birth.  It  is  the  root  of  the  institution.  The  Malayan  system 
of  consanguinity  affords  conclusive  evidence  of  its  ancient 
prevalence.  With  the  ancient  existence  of  the  consanguine 
family  established,  the  remaining  forms  can  be  explained  as 
successive  derivations  from  each  other.  This  form  of  mar- 
riage gives  (III.)  the  consanguine  family  and  (IV.)  the  Ma- 
layan system  of  consanguinity,  which  disposes  of  the  third 
and  fourth  members  of  the  sequence.  This  family  belongs 
to  the  Lower  Status  of  savagery. 

V.  The  Punaluan  Custom. — In  the  Australian  male  and  fe- 
male classes  united  in  marriage,  punaluan  groups  are  found. 
Among  the  Hawaiians,  the  same  group  is  also  found,  ^yith 
the  marriage  custom  it  expresses.  It  has  prevailed  among 
the  remote  ancestors  of  all  the  tribes  of  mankind  who  now 
possess  or  have  possessed  the  Turanian  system  of  consan- 
guinity, because  they  must  have  derived  it  from  punaluan 
ancestors.  There  is  seemingly  no  other  explanation  of  the 
origin  of  this  system.  Attention  has  been  called  to  the  fact 
that  the   punaluan  family  included  the  same  persons  found 


'  —  7iai  (pavsfjciji  /iiidyedSai  raid  re  aXXtui  yvvatci  nai  fxr/rpcxdi 
Hal  ddeXcpcxli. — Lib.   iv.   c.  5,  ^4.  "  Lib.  xvi,  c.  4,  §  25. 


SEQUENCE  OF  INSTITUTIONS.  503 

in  the  previous  consanguine,  with  the  exception  of  own 
brothers  and  sisters,  who  were  theoretically  if  not  in  every 
case  excluded.  It  is  a  fair  inference  that  the  punaluan  cus- 
tom worked  its  way  into  general  adoption  through  a  dis- 
covery of  its  beneficial  influence.  Out  of  punaluan  marriage 
came  (VI.)  the  punaluan  family,  which  disposes  of  the  sixth 
member  of  the  sequence.  This  family  originated,  probably, 
in  the  Middle  Status  of  savagery. 

VII.  TJie  Organization  into  Gcntcs. — The  position  of  this 
institution  in  the  sequence  is  the  only  question  here  to  be 
considered.  Among  the  Australian  classes,  the  punaluan 
group  is  found  on  a  broad  and  systematic  scale.  The  people 
are  also  organized  in  gentes.  Here  the  punaluan  family  is 
older  than  the  gens,  because  it  rested  upon  the  classes  which 
preceded  the  gentes.  The  Australians  also  have  the  Tura- 
nian system  of  consanguinity,  for  which  the  classes  laid  the 
foundation  by  excluding  own  brothers  and  sisters  from  the 
punaluan  group  united  in  marriage.  They  were  born  mem- 
bers of  classes  who  could  not  intermarry.  Among  the 
Hawaiians,  the  punaluan  family  was  unable  to  create  the 
Turanian  system  of  consanguinity.  Own  brothers  and  sis- 
ters were  frequently  involved  in  the  punaluan  group,  which 
the  custom  did  not  prevent,  although  it  tended  to  do  so. 
This  system  requires  both  the  punaluan  family  and  the 
gentile  organization  to  bring  it  into  existence.  It  follows 
that  the  latter  came  in  after  and  upon  the  former.  In  its 
relative  order  it  belongs  to  the  Middle  Status  of  savagery. 

VIII.  and  IX.  These  have  been  sufficiently  considered. 
X.  and  XI.  Marriage  between  Single  Pairs,  and  the  Svn- 

dyasmian  Fajnily. — After  mankind  had  advanced  out  of  sav- 
agery and  entered  the  Lower  Status  of  barbarism,  their 
condition  was  immensely  improved.  More  than  half  the 
battle  for  civilization  was  won.  A  tendency  to  reduce  the 
groups  of  married  persons  to  smaller  proportions  must  have 
begun  to  manifest  itself  before  the  close  of  savagery,  because 
the  syndyasmian  family  became  a  constant  phenomenon  in 
the  Lower  Status  of  barbarism.  The  custom  which  led  the 
more  advanced  savage  to  recognize  one  among  a  number  of 


504 


ANCIENT  SOCIETY. 


wives  as  |iis  principal  wife,  ripened  in  time  into  the  practice 
of  pairing,  and  in  making  this  wife  a  companion  and  associate 
in  the  maintenance  of  a  family.    With  the  growth  of  the  pro- 
pensity to  pair  came  an  increased  certainty  of  the  paternity 
of  children.     But  the  husband  could  put  away  his  wife,  and 
y  tne  wife  could  leave  her  husband,  and  each  seek  a  new  mate 
£^t  pleasure.     Moreover,  the  man  did  not  recognize,  on  his 
part,  the  obligations  of  the  marriage  tie,  and  therefore  had 
no  right  to  expect  its  recognition  by  his  wife.     The  old  con- 
jugal system,  now  reduced  to  narrower  limits  by  the  gradual 
disappearance  of  the  punaluan  groups,  still  environed  the 
advancing  family,  which   it  was  to  follow  to  the  verge  of 
civilization.     Its  reduction  to  zero  was  a   condition  prece- 
dent to  the  introduction  of  monogamy.     It  finally  disap- 
peared in  the  new  form  of  hetaerism,  which  still  follows  man- 
kind in  civilization  as  a  dark  shadow  upon  the  family.     The 
contrast  between  the  punaluan  and  syndyasmian  families 
was  greater  than  between  the  latter  and  the  monogamian. 
It  was  subsequent  in  time  to  the  gens,  which  was  largely 
instrumental  in  its  production.     That  it  was  a  transitional 
stage  of  the  family  between  the  two  is  made  evident  by  its 
inability  to  change  materially  the  Turanian  system  of  con- 
sanguinity, which  monogamy  alone  was  able  to  overthrow. 
From  the  Columbia  River  to  the  Paraguay,  the  Indian  fam- 
ily was    syndyasmian  in  general,  punaluan  in  exceptional 
areas,  and  monogamian  perhaps  in  none. 

XII.  and  XIII.  Pastoi'al  Life  and  the  PatriarcJial  Family. 
— It  has  been  remarked  elsewhere  that  polygamy  was  not 
the  essential  feature  of  this  family,  which  represented  a 
movement  of  society  to  assert  the  individuality  of  persons. 
Among  the  Semitic  tribes,  it  was  an  organization  of  servants 
and  slaves  under  a  patriarch  for  the  care  of  flocks  and  herds, 
for  the  cultivation  of  lands,  and  for  mutual  protection 
and  subsistence.  Polygamy  was  incidental.  With  a  single 
male  head  and  an  exclusive  cohabitation,  this  family  was  an 
advance  upon  the  syndyasmian,  and  therefore  not  a  retro- 
grade movement.  Its  influence  upon  the  human  race  was 
limited  ;  but   it   carries  with   it   a  confession   of  a  state  of 


SEQUENCE  OF  INSTITUTIONS.  505 

society  in  the  previous  period  against  which  it  was  des-igned 
to  form  a  barrier. 

XIV.  Rise  of  Property  and  the  establishment  of  lineal  suc- 
cession to  Estates. — Independently  of  the  movement  which 
culminated   in   the  patriarchal  family  of  the  Hebrew  and 
Latin  types,  property,  as  it  increased  in  variety  and  amount, 
exercised  a  steady  and  constantly  augmenting  influence  in 
the  direction  of  monogamy.     It  is  impossible  to  overesti- 
mate the  influence  of  property  in  the  civilization  of  man- 
kind.    It  was  the  power  that  brought  the  Aryan  and  Semi- 
tic nations  out  of  barbarism  into  civilization.     The  growth 
of  the  idea  of  property  in  the  human  mind  commenced  in 
feebleness  and  ended  in  becoming  its  master  passion.     Gov- 
ernments and  laws  are  instituted  with  primary  reference  to 
its  creation,  protection  and  enjoyment.     It  introduced  hu- 
man slavery  as  an  instrument  in  its  production  ;  and,  after 
the    experience  of   several  thousand  years,    it    caused    the 
abolition  of  slavery  upon  the  discovery  that  a  freeman  was 
a  better  property-making  machine.     The  cruelty  inherent 
in  the  heart  of  man,  which  civilization  and  Christianity  have 
softened  without  eradicating,  still  betrays  the  savage  origin 
of  mankind,  and  in  noway  more  pointedly  than  in  the  prac- 
tice of  human  slavery,  through  all  the  centuries  of  recorded 
history.     With  the  establishment  of  the  inheritance  of  pro- 
perty in  the  children  of  its  owner,  came  the  first  possibility 
of  a  strict  monogamian  family.     Gradually,  though  slowly, 
this  form  of  marriage,  with  an  exclusive  cohabitation,  be- 
came the  rule  rather  than  the  exception*;  but  it  was  not 
until  civilization   had  commenced  that  it   became   perma- 
nently established. 

XV.  The  Monogamian  Family. — As  finally  constituted, 
this  family  assured  the  paternity  of  children,  substituted  the 
individual  ownership  of  real  as  well  as  personal  property 
for  joint  ownership,  and  an  exclusive  inheritance  by  chil- 
dren in  the  place  of  agnatic  inheritance.  Modern  society 
reposes  upon  the  monogamian  family.  The  whole  previous 
experience  and  progress  of  mankind  culminated  and  crystal- 
lized in  this  pre-eminent  institution.     It  was  a  slow  growth, 


5o6 


ANCIENT  SOCIETY. 


planting  its  roots  far  back  in  the  period  of  savagery — a 
final  result  toward  which  the  experience  of  the  ages  steadily- 
tended.  Although  essentially  modern,  it  was  the  product 
of  a  vast  and  varied  experience. 

XVI.  The  Aryan,  Semitic  and  Uralian  systems  of  consan- 
guinity, which  are  essentially  identical,  were  created  by  the 
monogamian  family.  Its  relationships  are  those  which  ac- 
tually existed  under  this  form  of  marriage  and  of  the  family. 
A  system  of  consanguinity  is  not  an  arbitrary  enactment, 
but  a  natural  growth.  It  expresses,  and  must  of  necessity 
express,  the  actual  facts  of  consanguinity  as  they  appeared 
to  the  common  mind  when  the  system  w^as  formed.  As  the 
Aryan  system  establishes  the  antecedent  existence  of  a 
monogamian  family,  so  the  Turanian  establishes  the  an- 
tecedent existence  of  a  punaluan  family,  and  the  Malayan 
the  antecedent  existence  of  a  consanguine  family.  The 
evidence  they  contain  must  be  regarded  as  conclusive,  be- 
cause of  its  convincing  character  in  each  case.  With  the 
existence  established  of  three  kinds  of  marriage,  of  three 
forms  of  the  family,  and  of  three  systems  of  consanguinity, 
nine  of  the  sixteen  members  of  the  sequence  are  sustained. 
The  existence  and  relations  of  the  remainder  are  warranted 
by  sufficient  proof. 

The  views  herein  presented  contravene,  as  I  am  aware, 
an  assumption  which  has  for  centuries  been  generally  ac- 
cepted. It  is  the  hypothesis  of  human  degradation  to  ex- 
plain the  existence  of  barbarians  and  of  savages,  who  were 
found,  physically  and  mentally,  too  far  below  the  conceived 
standard  of  a  supposed  original  man.  It  was  never  a  sci- 
entific proposition  supported  by  facts.  It  is  refuted  by 
the  connected  series  of  inventions  and  discoveries,  by  the 
progressive  development  of  the  social  system,  and  by  the 
successive  forms  of  the  family.  The  Aryan  and  Semitic 
peoples  descended  from  barbarous  ancestors.  The  question 
then  meets  us,  how  could  these  barbarians  have  attained 
to  the  Upper  Status  of  barbarism,  in  which  they  first  ap- 
pear, without  previously  passing  through  the  experience  and 
acquiring  the  arts  and  development  of  the  Middle  Status  ; 
and,  further  than  this,  how  could  they  have  attained  to  the 


SEQUENCE  OF  INSTITUTIONS.  507 

Middle  Status  without  first  passing  through  the  experience 
of  the  Lower.  Back  of  these  is  the  further  question,  how 
a  barbarian  could  exist  without  a  previous  savage.  This  hy- 
pothesis of  degradation  leads  to  another  necessity,  namely; 
that  of  regarding  all  the  races  of  mankind  without  the  Aryan 
and  Semitic  connections  as  abnormal  races — races  fallen 
away  by  degeneracy  from  their  normal  state.  The  Aryan 
and  Semitic  nations,  it  is  true,  represent  the  main  streams 
of  human  progress,  because  they  have  carried  it  to  the 
highest  point  yet  attained ;  but  there  are  good  reasons  for 
supposing  that  before  they  became  differentiated  into  Aryan 
and  Semitic  tribes,  they  formed  a  part  of  the  indistinguish- 
able mass  of  barbarians.  As  these  tribes  themselves  sprang 
remotely  from  barbarous,  and  still  more  remotely  from 
savage  ancestors,  the  distinction  of  normal  and  abnormal 
races  falls  to  the  ground. 

This  sequence,  moreover,  contravenes  some  of  the  con- 
clusions of  that  body  of  eminent  scholars  who,  in  their 
speculations  upon  the  origin  of  society,  have  adopted  the 
patriarchal  family  of  the  Hebrew  and  Latin  types  as  the 
oldest  form  of  the  family,  and  as  producing  the  earliest 
organized  society.  '  The  human  race  is  thus  invested  from 
its  infancy  with  a  knowledge  of  the  family  under  paternal 
power.  Among  the  latest,  and  holding  foremost  rank 
among  them,  is  Sir  Henry  Maine,  whose  brilliant  researches 
in  the  sources  of  ancient  law,  and  in  the  early  history  of 
institutions,  have  advanced  so  largely  our  knowledge  of 
them.  The  patriarchal  family,  it  is  true,  is  the  oldest  made 
known  to  us  by  ascending  along  the  lines  of  classical  and 
Semitic  authorities  ;  but  an  investigation  along  these  lines  is 
unable  to  penetrate  beyond  the  Upper  Status  of  barbarism, 
leaving  at  least  four  entire  ethnical  periods  untouched,  and 
their  connection  unrecognized.  It  must  be  admitted,  how- 
ever, that  the  facts  with  respect  to  the  early  condition  of 
mankind  have  been  but  recently  produced,  and  that  judi- 
cious investigators  are  justly  careful  about  surrendering  old 
doctrines  for  new. 

Unfortunately  for  the  hypothesis  of  degradation,  inven- 
tions and  discoveries  would  come  one  by  one ;  the  knowledge 


508  ANCIENT  SOCIETY. 

of  a  cord  must  precede  the  bow  and  arrow,  as  the  knowledge 
of  gunpowder  preceded  the  musket,  and  that  of  the  steam-en- 
gine preceded  the  railway  and  the  steamship  ;  so  the  arts  of 
subsistence  followed  each  other  at  long  intervals  of  time,  and 
human  tools  passed  through  forms  of  flint  and  stone  before 
they  were  formed  of  iron.  In  like  manner  institutions  of 
government  are  a  growth  from  primitive  germs  of  thought. 
Growth,  development  and  transmission,  must  explain  thefr 
existence  among  civilized  nations.  Not  less  clearly  was  the 
monogamian  family  derived,  by  experience,  through  the 
syndyasmian  from  the  punaluan,  and  the  still  more  ancient 
consanguine  family.  If,  finally,  we  are  obliged  to  surrender 
the  antiquity  of  the  monogamian  family,  we  gain  a  knowl- 
edge of  its  derivation,  which  is  of  more  importance,  be- 
cause it  reveals  the  price  at  which  it  was  obtained. 

The  antiquity  of  mankind  upon  the  earth  is  now  estab- 
lished by  a  body  of  evidence  sufficient  to  convince  unpre- 
judiced minds.  The  existence  of  the  race  goes  back  defi- 
nitely to  the  glacial  period  in  Europe,  and  even  back  of  it 
into  the  anterior  period.  We  are  now  compelled  to  recog- 
nize the  prolonged  and  unmeasured  ages  of  man's  existence. 
The  human  mind  is  naturally  and  justly  curious  to  know 
something  of  the  life  of  man  during  the  last  hundred  thou- 
sand or  more  years,  now  that  we  are  assured  his  days  have 
been  so  long  upon  the  earth.  All  this  time  could  not  have 
been  spent  in  vain.  His  great  and  marvelous  achievements 
prove  the  contrary,  as  well  as  imply  the  expenditure  of 
long  protracted  ethnical  periods.  The  fact  that  civiliza- 
tion was  so  recent  suggests  the  difficulties  in  the  way 
of  human  progress,  and  affords  some  intimation  of  the 
lowness  of  the  level  from  which  mankind  started  on  their 
career. 

'^  The  foregoing  sequence  may  require  modification,  and 
perhaps  essential  change  in  some  of  its  members;  but  it 
affords  both  a  rational  and  a  satisfactory  explanation  of 
the  facts  of  human  experience,  so  far  as  they  are  known, 
and  of  the  course  of  human  progress,  in  developing  the 
ideas  of  the  family  and  of  government  in  the  tribes  of  man- 
kind. 


NOTE. 


MR.  J.  F.  MCLENNAN'S  "  PRIMITIVE  MARRIAGE." 

As  these  pages  are  passing  through  the  press,  I  have  obtained  an  enlarged 
edition  of  the  above-named  work.  It  is  a  reprint  of  the  original,  with  several 
Essays  appended  ;  and  is  now  styled  "Studies  in  Ancient  History  Comprising 
a  Reprint  of  Primitive  Marriage." 

In  one  of  these  Essays,  entitled  "  The  Classificatory  System  of  Relation- 
ships," Mr.  McLennan  devotes  one  section  (41  pages)  to  an  attempted  refu- 
tation of  my  explanation  of  the  origin  of  the  classificatory  system  ;  and  another 
(36  pages)  to  an  explanation  of  his  own  of  the  origin  of  the  same  system.  The 
hypothesis  first  referred  to  is  contained  in  my  work  on  the  "  Systems  of  Consan- 
guinity and  Affinity  of  the  Human  Family  "  (pp.  479-486).  The  facts  and  their 
explanation  are  the  same,  substantially,  as  those  presented  in  preceding  chap- 
ters of  this  volume  (Chaps.  II.  and  III.,  Part  III.).  "  Primitive  Marriage  "  was 
first  published  in  1865,  and  "  Systems  of  Consanguinity,"  etc.,  in  1871. 

Having  collected  the  facts  which  established  the  existence  of  the  classifica- 
tory system  of  consanguinity,  I  ventured  to  submit,  with  the  Tables,  an  hypoth- 
esis explanatory  of  its  origin.  That  hypotheses  are  useful,  and  often  indispen- 
sable to  the  attainment  of  truth,  will  not  be  questioned.  The  validity  of  the 
solution  presented  in  that  work,  and  repeated  in  this,  will  depend  upon  its 
sufficiency  in  explaining  all  the  facts  of  the  case.  Until  it  is  superseded  by  one 
better  entitled  to  acceptance  on  this  ground,  its  position  in  my  work  is  legit- 
mate,  and  in  accordance  with  the  method  of  scientific  inquiry. 

Mr.  McLennan  has  criticised  this  hypothesis  with  great  freedom.  His  con- 
clusion is  stated  generally  as  follows  (Studies,  etc.,  p.  371) :  "  The  space  I  have 
devoted  to  the  consideration  of  the  solution  may  seem  disproportioned  to  its 
importance  ;  but  issuing  from  the  press  of  the  Smithsonian  Institution,  and  its 
preparation  having  been  aided  by  the  United  States  Government,  Mr.  Morgan's 
work  has  been  very  generally  quoted  as  a  work  of  authority,  and  it  seemed 
worth  while  to  take  the  trouble  necessary  to  show  its  utterly  unscientific  char,- 
acter."     Not  the  hypothesis  alone,  but  the  entire  work  is  covered  by  the  charge. 

That  work  contains  187  pages  of  "Tables  of  Consanguinity  and  Affinity," 
exhibiting  the  systems  of  139  tribes  and  nations  of  manliind  representing  four- 
fifths,  numerically,  of  the  entire  human  family.  It  is  singular  that  the  bare 
facts  of  consanguinity  and  affinity  expressed  by  terms  of  relationship,  even 


5IO 


ANCIENT  SOCIETY. 


when  placed  in  tabular  form,  should  possess  an  "  utterly  unscientific  character." 
The  body  of  the  work  is  taken  up  with  the  dry  details  of  these  several  systems. 
There  remains  a  final  chapter,  consisting  of  43  out  of  590  pages,  devoted  to 
a  comparison  of  these  several  systems  of  consanguinity,  in  which  this  solution 
or  hypothesis  appears.  It  was  the  first  discussion  of  a  large  mass  of  new  mate- 
rial, and  had  Mr.  McLennan's  charge  been  limited  to  this  chapter,  there 
would  have  been  little  need  of  a  discussion  here.  But  he  has  directed  his 
main  attack  against  the  Tables  ;  denying  that  the  systems  they  exhibit  are  sys- 
tems of  consanguinity  and  affinity,  thus  going  to  the  bottom  of  the  subject. 

Mr.  McLennan's  position  finds  an  explanation  in  the  fact,  that  as  systems  of 
consanguinity  and  affinity  they  antagonize  and  refute  the  principal  opinions  and 
the  principal  theories  propounded  in  "Primitive  Marriage."  The  author  of 
"  Primitive  Marriage  "  would  be  expected  to  stand  by  his  preconceived  opinions. 

As  systems  of  consanguinity,  for  example  :  (i.)  They  show  that  Mr.  McLen- 
nan's new  terms,  "  Exogamy  and  Endogamy  "  are  of  questionable  utility — that 
as  used  in  "  Primitive  Marriage,"  their  positions  are  reversed,  and  that  "  endog- 
amy "  has  very  little  application  to  the  facts  treated  in  that  work,  wliile  "  exog- 
amy "  is  simply  a  rule  of  a  gens,  and  should  be  stated  as  such.  (2.)  They  refute 
Mr.  McLennan's  phrase,  "  kinship  through  females  only,"  by  showing  that  kin- 
ship through  males  was  recognized  as  constantly  as  kinship  through  females  by 
the  same  people.  (3.)  They  show  that  the  Nair  and  Tibetan  polyandry  could 
never  have  been  general  in  the  tribes  of  mankind.  (4.)  They  deny  both  the 
necessity  and  the  extent  of  "wife  stealing"  as  propounded  in  "  Primitive  Mar- 
riage." 

An  examination  of  the  grounds,  upon  which  Mr.  McLennan's  charge  is  made, 
will  show  not  only  the  failure  of  his  criticisms,  but  the  insufficiency  of  the  the- 
ories on  which  these  criticisms  are  based.  Such  an  examination  leads  to  results 
disastrous  to  his  entire  work,  as  will  be  made  evident  by  the  discussion  of  the 
following  propositions,  namely : 

I.  That  the  principal  terms  and  theoiies  employed  in  ''  Primitive  Marriage" 
have  no  valne  in  Ethnology. 

IL  That  Mr.  McLennan's  hypothesis  to  accotmt  for  the  origin  of  the  classifica- 
tory  system  of  relationship  does  not  account  for  its  origin. 

IIL  That  Air.  McLennan's  objections  to  the  hypothesis  presented  in  ^^  Systems 
of  Consanguinity,"  etc.,  are  of  no  force. 

These  propositions  will  be  considered  in  the  order  named. 

I.  That  the  principal  terms  and  theoiies  employed  in  "Primitive  Marriage" 
have  no  value  in  Ethnology . 

When  this  work  appeared  it  was  received  with  favor  by  ethnologists,  because 
as  a  speculative  treatise  it  touched  a  number  of  questions  upon  which  they 
had  long  been  working.  A  careful  reading,  however,  disclosed  deficiencies  in 
definitions,  unwarranted  assumptions,  crude  speculations  and  erroneous  conclu- 
sions. Mr.  Herbert  Spencer  in  his  "  Principles  of  Sociology  "  (Advance  Sheets, 
. « — — — ■ 

1  "The  ra/Vw,  however,  are  the  main  results  of  this  investigation.  In  their  importance 
and  vahie  they  reach  beyond  any  present  use  of  their  contents  the  writer  may  be  able  to 
indicate."— 5vj/tv«j  0/  Consanguzntty,  etc.,  Smithsonian  Contributions  to  Knowledge,  vol. 
xvii,  p.  8. 


SEQUENCE  OF  INSTITUTIONS.  5  1 1 

Popular  Science  Monthly,  Jan.,  1877,  p.  272),  has  pointed  out  a  number  of 
them.  At  the  same  time  he  rejects  the  larger  part  of  Mr.  McLennan's  theories 
respecting  "Female  Infanticide,"  "Wife  Stealing,"  and  "Exogamy  and 
Endogamy."  What  he  leaves  of  this  work,  beyond  its  collocation  of  certain 
ethnological  facts,  it  is  difficult  to  find. 

It  will  be  sufficient  under  this  head  to  consider  three  points. 

I.    Mr.  McLennan's  use  of  the  terms  "Exogamy"  and  "Endogamy." 

"Exogamy"  and  "endogamy" — terms  of  his  own  coinage — imply,  respec- 
tively, an  obligation  to  "  marry  out,"  and  an  obligation  to  "  marry  in,"  a  parti- 
cular group  of  persons. 

These  terms  are  applied  so  loosely  and  so  imprecisely  by  Mr.  McLennan  to 
the  organized  groups  made  known  to  him  by  the  authors  he  cites,  that  both  his 
terms  and  his  conclusions  are  of  little  value.  It  is  a  fundamental  difficulty 
with  "  Primitive  Marriage  "  that  the  gens  and  the  tribe,  or  the  groups  they  repre- 
sent, are  not  distinguished  from  each  other  as  members  of  an  organic  series,  so 
that  it  might  be  known  of  which  group  "  exogamy  "  or  "  endogamy  "  is  asserted. 
One  of  eight  gentes  of  a  tribe,  for  example,  may  be  "  exogamous  "  with  respect  to 
itself,  and  "  endogamous  "  with  respect  to  the  seven  remaining  gentes.  More- 
over, these  terms,  in  such  a  case,  if  correctly  applied,  are  misleading.  Mr. 
McLennan  seems  to  be  presenting  tivo  great  principles,  representing  distinct  con- 
ditions of  society  which  have  influenced  human  affairs.  In  point  of  fact,  while 
"endogamy"  has  very  little  application  to  conditions  of  society  treated  in 
"  Primitive  Marriage,"  "  exogamy  "  has  reference  to  a  rule  or  law  of  a  gens — an 
institution — and  as  such  the  unit  of  organization  of  a  social  system.  It  is  the 
gens  that  has  influenced  human  affairs,  and  which  is  the  primary  fact.  We  are 
at  once  concerned  to  know  its  functions  and  attributes,  with  the  rights,  privi- 
leges and  obligations  of  its  members.  Of  these  material  circumstances  Mr. 
McLennan  makes  no  account,  nor  does  he  seem  to  have  had  the  slightest  con- 
ception of  the  gens  as  a  governing  institution  of  ancient  society.  Two  of  its 
rules  are  the  following  :  (r.)  Intermarriage  in  the  gens  is  prohibited.  This  is  Mr. 
McLennan's  "  exogamy  " — restricted  as  it  always  is  to  a  gens,  but  stated  by 
him  without  any  reference  to  a  gens.  (2.)  In  the  archaic  form  of  the  gens 
descent  is  limited  to  the  female  line,  which  is  Mr.  McLennan's  "  kinship  through 
females  only,"  and  which  is  also  stated  by  him  without  any  reference  to  a 
gens. 

Let  us  follow  this  matter  further.  Seven  definitions  of  tribal  system,  and  of 
tribe  are  given  {Studies,  etc.,  113-115). 

"  Exogamy  Pure. — I.  Tribal  (or  family)  system. —  Tribes  separate.  All  the 
members  of  each  tribe  of  the  same  blood,  or  feigning  themselves  to  be  so. 
Marriage  prohibited  between  the  members  of  the  tribe. 

"  2.  Tribal  system. —  Tribe  a  congeries  of  family  grottps,  falling  into  divisions, 
clans,  thums,  etc.  No  connubium  between  members  of  same  division  :  connu- 
bium  between  all  the  division.s. 

"3.  Tribal  system. —  Tribe  a  congeries  of  family  groups.  *  *  *  N«  con- 
nubium between  persons  whose  family  name  points  them  out  as  being  of  the 
same  stock. 

"4.  Tribal  system. —  Tribe  in  divisions.     No   connubium   between   members 


5 1 2  ANCIENT  SOCIE  T Y. 

of  the  same  divisions  :  connubium  between  some  of  the  divisions  ;  only  partial 
connubium  between  others.     *     *     * 

"5.  Ti'ibal  system. —  Tribe  in  divisions.  No  connubium  between  persons  of 
the  same  stocl: :  connubium  between  each  division  and  some  other.  No  con- 
nubium between  some  of  the  divisions.     Caste. 

"  Endogamy  Pure.  6.  Tribal  (or  family)  system. —  Tribes  separate.  All  the 
members  of  each  tribe  of  the  same  blood,  or  feigning  themselves  to  be  so.  Con- 
nubium between  members  of  the  tribe :  marriage  without  the  tribe  forbidden 
and  punished. 

"7.  Tribal  system  indistinct."     *     *     *     The  italics  are  mine. 
Seven  definitions  of  the  tribal  system  ought  to  define  the  group  called  a  tribe, 
with  sufficient  distinctness  to  be  recognized. 

The  first  definition,  however,  is  a  puzzle.  There  are  several  tribes  in  a  tribal 
system,  but  no  term  for  the  aggregate  of  tribes.  They  are  not  supposed  to  form 
a  united  body.  Plow  the  separate  tribes  fall  into  a  tribal  system  or  are  held 
together  does  not  appear.  All  the  members  of  each  tribe  are  of  the  same 
blood,  or  pretend  to  be,  and  therefore  cannot  intermarry.  This  might  answer 
for  a  description  of  a  gens ;  but  the  gens  is  never  found  alone,  separate  from 
other  gentes.  There  are  several  gentes  intermingled  by  marriage  in  every 
tribe  composed  of  gentes.  But  Mr.  McLennan  could  not  have  used  tribe  here  as 
equivalent  to  gens,  nor  as  a  congeries  of  family  groups.  As  separate  bodies  of 
consanguinei  held  together  in  a  tribal  system,  the  bodies  undefined  and  the  system 
unexplained,  we  are  offered  something  altogether  new.  Definition  6  is  much  the 
same.  It  is  not  probable  that  a  tribe  answering  to  either  of  these  definitions 
ever  existed  in  any  part  of  the  earth  ;  for  it  is  neither  a  gens,  nor  a  tribe  com- 
posed of  gentes,  nor  a  nation  formed  by  the  coalescence  of  tribes. 

Definitions  2d,  3d,  4th,  and  5th  are  somewhat  more  intelligible.  They 
show  in  each  case  a  tribe  composed  of  gentes,  or  divisions  based  upon  kin. 
But  it  is  a  gentile  rather  than  a  tribal  system.  As  marriage  is  allowed  be- 
tween the  clans,  thums,  or  divisions  of  the  same  tribe,  "  exogamy"  cannot  be 
asserted  of  the  tribe  in  either  case.  The  clan,  thum,  or  division  is  "  exogamous," 
with  respect  to  itself,  but  "  endogamous"  with  respect  to  the  other  clans,  thums, 
or  divisions.     Particular  restrictions  are  stated  to  exist  in  some  instances. 

When  Mr.  McLennan  applies  the  terms  "exogamy"  or  "endogamy "to  a 
tribe,  how  is  it  to  be  known  whether  it  is  one  of  several  separate  tribes  in  a 
tribal  system,  whatever  this  may  mean,  or  a  tribe  defined  as  a  congeries  of  family 
groups  ?  On  the  next  page  (iT6)he  remarks  :  "  The  separate  endogamous  tribes 
are  nearly  as  numerous,  and  they  are  in  some  respects  as  rude,  as  the  separate 
exogamous  tribes."  If  he  uses  tribe  as  a  congeries  of  family  groups,  which  is  a 
tribe  composed  of  gentes,  then  "  exogamy  "  cannot  be  asserted  of  the  tribe. 
There  is  not  the  slightest  probability  that  "exogamy"  ever  existed  in  a  tribe 
composed  of  gentes  in  any  part  of  the  earth.  Wherever  the  gentile  organization 
has  been  found  intermarriage  in  the  gens  is  forbidden.  It  gives  what  Mr. 
McLennan  calls  "exogamy."  But,  as  an  equally  general  rule,  intermarriage 
between  the  members  of  a  gens  and  the  members  of  all  the  other  gentes  of  the 
same  tribe  is  permitted.  The  gens  is  "exogamous,"  and  the  tribe  is  essentially 
"  endogamous."     In  these  cases,  if  in  no  others,  it  was  material  to  know  the 


SEQ  UENCE  OF  INSTITUTIONS.  5  1 3 

group  covered  hy  the  word  tribe.  Take  another  ilkistration  (p.  42) :  "  If  it  can 
be  shown,  firstly,  that  exogamous  tribes  exist,  or  have  existed  ;  and,  secondly, 
that  in  ruder  times  the  relations  of  separate  tribes  were  uniformly,  or  almost 
uniformly,  hostile,  we  have  found  a  set  of  circumstances  in  which  men  could  get 
wives  only  by  capturing  them."  Here  we  find  the  initial  point  of  Mr.  McLen- 
nan's  theory  of  wife  stealing.  To  make  the  "  set  of  circumstances  "  (namely, 
hostile  and  therefore  independent  tribes),  tribe  as  used  here  must  refer  to  the 
larger  group,  a  tribe  composed  of  gentes.  For  the  members  of  the  several 
gentes  of  a  tribe  are  intermingled  by  marriage  in  every  family  throughout  the 
area  occupied  by  the  tribe.  All  the  gentes  must  be  hostile  or  none.  If  the 
term  is  applied  to  the  smaller  group,  the  gens,  then  the  gens  is  "  exogamous," 
and  the  tribe,  in  the  given  case,  is  seven-eighths  "  endogamous,"  and  what  be- 
comes of  the  "  sec  of  circumstances  "  necessitating  wife  stealing? 

The  principal  cases  cited  in  "  Primitive  Marriage  "  to  prove  "  exogamy"  are 
the  Khonds,  Kalmucks,  Circassians,  Yurak  Samoyeds, certain. tribes  of  India  and 
Australia,  and  certain  Indian  tribes  of  America,  the  Iroquois  among  the  number 
(pp.  75—100).  The  American  tribes  are  generally  composed  of  gentes.  A  man 
cannot  marry  a  woman  of  the  same  gens  with  himself;  but  he  may  marry  a 
woman  of  any  other  gens  of  his  own  tribe.  For  example,  a  man  of  the  Wolf 
gens  of  the  Seneca  tribe  of  the  Iroquois  is  prohibited  from  marrying  a  woman 
of  the  same  gens,  not  only  in  the  Seneca  tribe,  but  also  in  either  of  the  five 
remaining  Iroquois  tribes.  Here  we  have  Mr.  McLennan's  "exogamy,"  but 
restricted,  as  it  always  is,  to  the  gens  of  the  individual.  But  a  man  may  marry 
a  woman  in  either  of  the  seven  remaining  Seneca  gentes.  Here  we  have 
"  endogamy"  in  the  tribe,  practiced  by  the  members  of  each  gens  in  the  seven 
remaining  Seneca  gentes.  Both  practices  exist  side  by  side  at  the  same  time,  in 
the  sam2  tribe,  and  have  so  existed  from  time  immemorial.  The  same  fact  is 
true  of  the  American  Indian  tribes  in  general.  They  are  cited,  nevertheless, 
by  Mr.  McLennan,  as  examples  of  "exogamous  tiibes";  and  thus  enter  into  the 
basis  of  his  theories. 

With  respect  to  "  endogamy,"  Mr.  McLennan  would  probably  refrain  from 
using  it  in  the  above  case  :  firstly,  because  "  exogamy"  and  "endogamy"  fail 
here  to  represent  two  opposite  principles  as  they  exist  in  his  imagination  ;  and, 
secondly,  because  there  is,  in  reality,  but  one  fact  to  be  indicated,  namely,  that 
intermarriage  in  the  gens  is  prohibited.  American  Indians  generally  can  marry 
in  their  own  or  in  a  foreign  tribe  as  they  please,  but  not  in  their  gens.  Mr. 
McLennan  was  able  to  cite  one  fair  case  of  "  endogamy,"  that  of  the  Mantchu 
Tartars  (p.  116),  "who  prohibited  marriage  between  persons  whose  family 
names  are  different."  A  few  other  similar  cases  have  been  found  among  exist- 
ing tribes. 

If  the  organizations,  for  example,  of  the  Yurak  Samoyeds  of  Siberia  (82), 
the  Magars  of  Nepaul  (83),  the  Munnieporees,  Koupooees,  Mows,  Muram  and 
Murring  tribes  of  India  (S7),  were  examined  upon  the  original  evidence,  it 
is  highly  probable  that  they  would  be  found  exactly  analogous  to  the  Iroquois 
tribes  ;  the  "divisions  "  and  "thums"  being  gentes.  Latham,  speaking  of  the 
Yurak  or  Kasovo  group  of  the  Samoyeds,  quotes  from  Klaproth,  as  follows : 
"  This  division  of  the  kinsmanship  is  so  rigidly  oljserved  that  no  Samoyed  takes 
33 


514  ANCIENT  SOCIETY. 

a  wife  from  the  kinsmansliip  to  which  he  himself  belongs.  On  the  contrary, 
he  seeks  her  in  one  of  the  other  two."  ^  The  same  author,  speaking  of  the 
Magars,  remarks :  "  There  are  twelve  thunis.  All  individuals  belonging  to 
the  same  thum  are  supposed  to  be  descended  from  the  same  male  ancestor  ; 
descent  from  the  same  great  mother  being  by  no  means  necessary.  So  husband 
and  wife  must  belong  to  different  thums.  With  one  and  the  same  there  is  no 
marriage.  Do  you  wish  for  a  wife  ?  If  so,  look  to  the  thum  of  your  neighbor  ; 
at  any  rate  look  beyond  your  own.  This  is  the  first  time  I  have  had  occasion 
to  mention  this  practice.  It  will  not  be  the  last :  on  the  contrary,  the  princi- 
ple it  suggests  is  so  common  as  to  be  almost  universal."  ^  The  Murring  and 
other  tribes  of  India  are  in  divisions,  with  the  same  rule  in  respect  to  marriage. 
In  these  cases  it  is  probable  that  we  have  tribes  composed  of  gentes,  with  inter- 
marriage in  the  gens  prohibited.  Each  gens  is  "exogamous"  with  respect  to 
itself,  and  "  endogamous  "  with  respect  to  the  remaining  gentes  of  the  tribe. 
They  are  cited  by  Mr.  McLennan,  nevertheless,  rtj  ^xaw/Z^fj  of  " exogafnous" 
tribes.  The  principal  Australian  tribes  are  known  to  be  organized  in  gentes, 
with  intermarriage  in  the  gens  prohibited.  Here  again  the  gens  is  "  exogamous  " 
and  the  tribe  "endogamous." 

Where  the  gens  is  "  exogamous"  with  respect  to  itself,  and  "  endogamous " 
with  respect  to  the  remaining  gentes  of  the  same  tribe,  of  what  use  is  this  pair 
of  terms  to  mark  what  is  but  a  single  fact — the  prohibition  of  intermarriage  in 
the  gens?  "  Exogamy"  and  "endogamy"  are  of  no  value  as  a  pair  of  terms, 
pretending  as  they  do  to  represent  or  express  opposite  conditions  of  society. 
They  have  no  application  in  American  ethnology,  and  probably  none  in  Asiatic 
or  European.  "  Exogamy,"  standing  alone  and  applied  to  the  small  group  (the 
gens),  of  which  only  it  can  be  asserted,  might  be  tolerated.  There  are  no 
"exogamous"  tribes  in  America,  but  a  plenty  of  "exogamous"  gentes;  and 
when  the  gens  is  found,  we  are  concerned  with  its  rules,  and  these  should 
always  be  stated  as  rules  of  a  gens.  Mr.  McLennan  found  the  clan,  thum, 
division,  "exogamous,"  and  the  aggregate  of  clans,  thums,  divisions,  "endoga- 
mous "  ;  but  he  says  nothing  about  the  "  endogamy."  Neither  does  he  say  the 
clan,  division,  or  thum  is  "exogamous,"  but  that  the  tribe  is  "exogamous." 
We  might  suppose  he  intended  to  use  tribe  as  equivalent  to  clan,  thum,  and 
division  ;  but  we  are  met  with  the  difficulty  that  he  defines  a  "  tribe  [as]  a 
congeries  of  family  groups,  falling  into  divisions,  clans,  thums,  etc."  (114), 
and  immediately  (116)  he  remarks  that  "the  separate  endogamous  tribes  are 
nearly  as  numerous,  and  they  are  in  some  respects  as  rude,  as  the  separate  ex- 
ogamous tribes."  If  we  take  his  principal  definitions,  it  can  be  said  without 
fear  of  contradiction  that  Mr.  McLennan  has  not  produced  a  single  case  of  an 
"  exogamous  "  tribe  in  his  volume. 

There  is  another  objection  to  this  pair  of  terms.  They  are  set  over  against 
each  other  to  indicate  opposite  and  dissimilar  conditions  of  society.  Which 
of  the  two  is  the  ruder,  and  which  the  more  advanced  ?  Abundant  cautions 
are  here  thrown  out  by  Mr.  McLennan.  "They  may  represent  a  progression 
from  exogamy  to  endogamy,  or  from  endogamy  to  exogamy  "  (115)  I  "  tliey  may 

*  Descriptive  Ethnology,  Lond.  ed.,  1859,  i,  475.  *  lb.,  i,  80. 


SEQ  UENCE  OF  INSTITUTIONS.  5 1  5 

be  equally  archaic  "  (116) ;  and  "  they  are  in  some  respects  "  equally  rude  (116) ; 
but  before  the  discussion  ends,  "  endogamy "  rises  to  the  superior  position, 
and  stands  over  toward  civilization,  vifhile  "  exogamy  "  falls  back  in  the  direc- 
tion of  savagery.  It  became  convenient  in  Mr.  McLennan's  speculations  for 
"exogamy"  to  introduce  heterogeneity,  which  "  endogamy "  is  employed  to 
expel,  and  bring  in  homogeneity  ;  so  that "  endogamy  "  finally  gets  the  better  ol 
"  exogamy  "  as  an  influence  for  progress. 

One  of  Mr.  Mcl.ennan's  mistakes  was  his  reversal  of  the  positions  of  these 
terms.  What  he  calls  "  endogamy  "  precedes  "  exogamy  "  in  the  order  of  human 
progress,  and  belongs  to  the  lowest  condition  of  mankind.  Ascending  to  the 
time  when  the  Malayan  system  of  consanguinity  was  formed,  and  which  pre- 
ceded the  gens,  we  find  consanguine  groups  in  the  marriage  relation.  The  sys- 
tem of  consanguinity  indicates  both  the  fact  and  the  character  of  the  groups, 
and  exhibits  "endogamy"  in  its  pristine  force.  Advancing  from  this  state  of 
things,  the  first  check  upon  "  endogamy  "  is  found  in  the  punaluan  group,  which 
sought  to  exclude  own  brothers  and  sisters  from  the  marriage  relation,  while 
it  retained  in  that  relation  first,  second,  and  more  remote  cousins,  still  under 
the  name  of  brothers  and  sisters.  The  same  thing  precisely  is  found  in  the 
Australian  organization  upon  sex.  Next  in  the  order  of  time  the  gens  ap- 
peared, with  descent  in  the  female  line,  and  with  intermarriage  in  the  gens 
prohibited.  It  brought  in  Mr.  McLennan's  "exogamy."  From  this  time  for- 
ward "  endogamy  "  may  be  dismissed  as  an  influence  upon  human  affairs. 

According  to  Mr.  McLennan,  "exogamy"  fell  into  decay  in  advancing  com- 
munities ;  and  when  descent  was  changed  to  the  male  line  it  disappeared  in  the 
Grecian  and  Roman  tribes  (p.  220).  So  far  from  this  being  the  case,  what  he 
calls  "  exogamy  "  commenced  in  savagery  with  the  gens,  continued  through  bar- 
barism, and  remained  intocivilization.  It  existed  as  completely  in  the  gentes 
of  the  Greeks  and  Romans  in  the  time  of  Solon  and  of  Servius  Tullius  as  it 
now  exists  in  the  gentes  of  the  Iroquois.  "  Exogamy  "  and  "  endogamy"  have 
been  so  thoroughly  tainted  by  the  manner  of  their  use  in  "  Primitive  Marriage," 
that  the  best  disposition  which  can  now  be  made  of  them  is  to  lay  them  aside. 

2.   Mr.  McLennan'' s phrase  :  "  the  system  of  kinship  through  females  only." 

"  Primitive  Marriage  "  is  deeply  colored  with  this  phrase.  It  asserts  that  this 
kinship,  where  it  prevailed,  was  the  only  kinship  recognized  ;  and  thus  has  an 
error  written  on  its  face.  The  Turanian,  Ganowanian  and  Malayan  systems 
of  consanguinity  show  plainly  and  conclusively  that  kinship  through  males  was 
recognized  as  constantly  as  kinship  through  females.  A  man  had  brothers  and 
sisters,  grandfathers  and  grandmothers,  grandsons  and  granddaughters,  traced 
through  males  as  well  as  through  females.  The  maternity  of  children  was 
ascertainable  with  certainty,  while  their  paternity  was  not  ;  but  they  did  not 
reject  kinship  through  males  because  of  uncertainty,  but  gave  the  benefit  of  the 
doubt  to  a  number  of  persons — probable  fathers  being  placed  in  the  category 
of  real  fathers,  probable  brothers  in  that  of  real  brothers,  and  probable  sons  in 
that  of  real  sons. 

After  the  gens  appeared,  kinship  through  females  had  an  increased  importance, 
because  it  now  signified  _<rt'«///d'  kin,  as  distinguished  from  ;;^«-^r«// A" /('/«.  This 
was  the  kinship,  in  a  majority  of  cases,  made  known  to  Mr.  IMcLennan  by  tlie 


5 16  ANCIENT  SOCIETY. 

authors  he  cites.  The  children  of  the  female  members  of  the  gens  remained 
within  it,  while  the  children  of  its  male  members  were  excluded.  Every  member 
of  the  gens  traced  his  or  her  descent  through  females  exclusively  when  descent 
was  in  the  female  line,  and  through  males  exclusively  when  descent  was  in  the 
male  line.  Its  members  were  an  organized  body  of  consanguine!  bearing  a 
common  gentile  name.  They  were  bound  together  by  affinities  of  blood,  and 
by  the  further  bond  of  mutual  rights,  privileges,  and  obligations.  Gentile  kin 
became,  in  both  cases,  superior  to  other  kin  ;  sot  because  no  other  kin  was 
recognized,  but  because  it  conferred  the  rights  and  privileges  of  a  gens.  Mr. 
McLennan's  failure  to  discover  this  difference  indicates  an  insufficient  investi- 
gation of  the  subject  he  was  treating.  With  descent  in  the  female  line,  a  man 
had  grandfathers  and  grandmothers,  mothers,  brothers  and  sisters,  uncles, 
nephews  and  nieces,  and  grandsons  and  granddaughters  in  his  gens  ;  some  own 
and  some  collateral  ;  while  he  had  the  same  out  of  his  gens  with  the  exception 
of  uncles  ;  and  in  addition,  fathers,  aunts,  sons  and  daughters,  and  cousins.  A 
woman  had  the  same  relatives  in  the  gens  as  a  man,  and  sons  and  daughters  in 
addition,  while  she  had  the  same  relatives  out  of  the  gens  as  a  man.  Whether 
in  or  out  of  the  gens,  a  brother  was  recognized  as  a  brother,  a  father  as  a  father, 
a  son  as  a  son,  and  the  same  term  was  applied  in  either  case  without  discrimi- 
nation between  them.  Descent  in  the  female  line,  which  is  all  that  "  kinship 
through  females  only  "  can  possibly  indicate,  is  thus  seen  to  be  a  rule  of  a  gens, 
and  nothing  more.  It  ought  to  be  stated  as  such,  because  the  gens  is  the  pri- 
mary fact,  and  gentile  kinship  is  one  of  its  attributes. 

Prior  to  the  gentile  organization,  kinship  through  females  was  undoubtedly 
superior  to  kinship  through  males,  and  was  doubtless  the  principal  basis  upon 
which  the  lower  tribal  groups  were  organized.  But  the  body  of  facts  treated 
in  "Primitive  Marriage"  have  little  or  no  relation  to  that  condition  of  man- 
kind which  existed  prior  to  the  gentile  system. 

3.  There  is  no  evidence  of  the  general  prevalence  of  the  Nair  and  Tibetan 
polyandry. 

These  forms  of  polyandry  are  used  in  Mr.  McLennan's  speculations  as 
though  universal  in  practice.  He  employs  them  in  his  attempted  explanation 
of  the  origin  of  the  classificatory  system  of  relationship.  The  Nair  polyandry  is 
where  several  unrelated  persons  have  one  wife  in  common  (p.  146).  It  is  called 
the  rudest  form.  The  Tibetan  polyandry  is  where  several  brothers  have  one 
wife  in  common.  He  then  makes  a  rapid  flight  through  the  tribes  of  mankind 
to  show  the  general  prevalence  of  one  or  the  other  of  these  forms  of  polyandry, 
and  fails  entirely  to  show  their  prevalence.  It  does  not  seem  to  have  occurred 
to  Mr.  McLennan  that  these  forms  of  polyandry  are  exceptional,  and  that  they 
could  not  have  been  general  even  in  the  Neilgherry  Hills  or  in  Tibet.  If  an 
average  of  three  men  had  one  wife  in  common  (twelve  husbands  to  one  wife 
was  the  Nair  limit,  p.  147),  and  this  was  general  through  a  tribe,  two-thirds  of 
the  marriageable  females  would  be  without  husbands.  It  may  safely  be  asserted 
that  such  a  state  of  things  never  existed  generally  in  the  tribes  of  mankind,  and 
without  better  evidence  it  cannot  be  credited  in  the  Neilgherry  Hills  or  in 
Tibet.  The  facts  in  respect  to  the  Nair  polyandry  are  not  fully  known.  "  A 
Nair  may  be  one  in  several  combinations  of  husbands  ;  that  is,  he  may  have  any 


SEQUENCE  OF  INSTITUTIONS.  5  1 7 

number  of  wives  "  (p.  14S).  This,  however,  would  not  help  the  unmarried  females 
to  husbands,  although  it  would  increase  the  number  of  husbands  of  one  wife. 
Female  infanticide  cannot  be  sufficiently  exaggerated  to  raise  into  general 
prevalence  these  forms  of  polyandiy.  Neither  can  it  be  said  with  truth  that 
they  have  exercised  a  general  influence  upon  human  affairs. 

The  Malayan,  Turanian  and  Ganowanian  systems  of  consanguinity  and  affin- 
ity, however,  bring  to  light  forms  of  polygyny  and  polyandry  which  have  influ- 
enced human  affairs,  because  they  were  as  universal  in  prevalence  as  these 
systems  were,  when  they  respectively  came  into  existence.  In  the  Malayan 
system,  we  find  evidence  of  consanguine  groups  founded  upon  brother  and  sister 
marriages,  but  including  collateral  brothers  and  sisters  in  the  group.  Here 
the  men  lived  in  polygyny,  and  the  women  in  polyandry.  In  the  Turanian  and 
Ganowanian  system  we  find  evidence  of  a  more  advanced  group — the  punaluan 
in  two  forms.  One  was  founded  on  the  brotherhood  of  the  husbands,  and  the 
other  on  the  sisterhood  of  the  wives ;  own  brothers  and  sisters  being  now  ex- 
cluded from  the  marriage  relation.  In  each  group  the  men  were  polygynous,  and 
the  women  polyandrous.  Both  practices  are  found  in  the  same  group,  and 
both  are  essential  to  an  explanation  of  their  system  of  consanguinity.  The 
last-named  system  of  consanguinity  and  affinity  presupposes  punaluan  marriage 
in  the  group.  This  and  the  Malayan  exhibit  the  forms  of  polygyny  and  poly- 
andry with  which  ethnography  is  concerned  ;  while  the  Nair  and  Tibetan  forms 
of  polyandry  are  not  only  insufficient  to  explain  the  systems,  but  are  of  no 
general  importance. 

These  systems  of  consanguinity  and  affinity,  as  they  stand  in  the  Tables,  have 
committed  such  havoc  with  the  theories  and  opinions  advanced  in  "  Primitive 
Marriage"  that  I  am  constrained  to  ascribe  to  this  fact  Mr.  McLennan's  assault 
upon  my  liypodiesis  explanatory  of  their  origin  ;  and  his  attempt  to  substitute 
another,  denying  them  to  be  systems  of  consanguinity  and  affinity. 

II.  That  Mr.  ]\IcLe7inans  hypothesis  to  account  for  the  origin  of  the  classif- 
catory  system  does  not  account  for  its  origin. 

■  Mr.  McLennan  sets  out  with  the  statement  (p.  372)  that  "  the  phenomena 
presented  in  all  the  forms  [of  the  classificatory  system]  are  ultimately  refer- 
able to  the  marriage  law  ;  and  that  accordingly  its  origin  must  be  so  also.' 
This  is  the  basis  of  my  explanation  ;  it  is  but  partially  that  of  his  own. 

The  marriage-law,  under  which  he  attempts  to  explain  the  origin  of  the  Ma- 
layan system,  is  that  found  in  the  Nair  polyandry  ;  and  the  marriage-law  under 
which  he  attempts  to  explain  the  origin  of  the  Turanian  and  Ganowanian 
system  is  that  indicated  by  the  Tibetan  polyandry.  But  he  has  neither  the 
Nair  nor  Tibetan  system  of  consanguinity  and  affinity,  with  which  to  explain  or 
to  test  his  hypothesis.  He  starts,  then,  without  any  material  from  Nair  or 
Tibetan  sources,  and  with  forms  of  marriage-law  that  never  existed  among  the 
tribes  and  nations  possessing  the  classificatory  system  of  relationship.  We 
thus  find  at  the  outset  that  the  explanation  in  question  is  a  mere  random  specu- 
lation. 

Mr.  McLennan  denies  that  the  systems  in  the  Tsihl&s  {Consangtiinity, -p^. 
298-382  ;  523-567)  are  systems  of  consanguinity  and  affinity.  On  the  contrary, 
he  asserts  that  together  jhey  are  "a  system   of  modes  of  addressing  persons." 


5l8  ANCIENT  SOCIETY. 

He  is  not  unequivocal  in  his  denial,  but  the  purport  of  his  language  is  to  that 
effect.  In  my  work  of  Consanguinity  I  pointed  out  the  fact  that  the  American 
Indians  in  familiar  intercourse  and  in  formal  salutation  addressed  each  other 
by  the  exact  relationship  in  which  they  stood  to  each  other,  and  never  by  the 
personal  name  ;  and  that  the  same  usage  prevailed  in  South  India  and  in 
China.  They  use  the  system  in  salutation  because  it  is  a  system  of  consanguin- 
ity and  affinity — a  reason  paramount.  Mr.  McLennan  wishes  us  to  believe 
that  these  all-embracing  systems  were  simply  conventional,  and  formed  to  ena- 
ble persons  to  address  each  other  in  salutation,  and  for  no  other  purpose.  It  is 
a  happy  way  of  disposing  of  these  systems,  and  of  throwing  away  the  most 
remarkable  record  in  existence  respecting  the  early  condition  of  mankind. 

Mr.  McLennan  imagines  there  must  have  been  a  system  of  consanguinity 
somewhere  entirely  independent  of  the  system  of  addresses;  "for  it  seems 
reasonable  to  believe,"  he  remarks  (p.  373),  "  that  the  system  of  blood-ties  and 
the  system  of  addresses  would  begin  to  grow  up  together,  and  for  some  little 
time  would  have  a  common  history."  A  system  of  blood-ties  is  a  system  of 
consanguinity.  Where,  then,  is  the  lost  system  ?  Mr.  McLennan  neither  pro- 
duces it  nor  shows  its  existence.  But  I  find  he  uses  the  systems  in  the 
Tables  rtj  systems  of  consangtiinity  and  affinity,  so  far  as  they  serve  his  hypothe- 
sis, without  taking  the  trouble  to  modify  the  assertion  that  they  are  simply 
"  modes  of  addressing  persons." 

That  savage  and  barbarous  tribes  the  world  over,  and  through  untold  ages, 
should  have  been  so  solicitous  concerning  the  proper  mode  of  addressing  rela- 
tions as  to  have  produced  the  Malayan,  Turanian  and  Ganowanian  systems, 
in  their  fullness  and  complexity,  for  that  purpose  and  no  other,  and  no  other 
systems  than  these  two — that  in  Asia,  Africa,  Polynesia,  and  America  they 
should  have  agreed,  for  example,  that  a  given  person's  grandfather's  brother 
should  be  addressed  as  grandfather,  that  brothers  older  than  one's  self  should  be 
addressed  as  elder  brothers,  and  those  younger  as  younger  brothers,  merely  to 
provide  a  conventional  mode  of  addressing  relatives — are  coincidences  so  re- 
markable and  for  so  small  a  reason,  that  it  will  be  quite  sufficient  for  the  author 
of  this  brilliant  conception  to  believe  it. 

A  system  of  modes  of  addressing  persons  would  be  ephemeral,  because  all  con- 
ventional usages  are  ephemeral.  They  would,  also,  of  necessity,  be  as  diverse  as 
the  races  of  mankind.  But  a  system  of  consanguinity  is  a  very  different  thing. 
Its  relationships  spring  from  the  family  and  the  marriage-law,  and  possess  even 
greater  permanence  than  the  family  itself,  which  advances  while  the  system 
remains  unchanged.  These  relationships  expressed  the  actual  facts  of  the  so- 
cial condition  when  the  system  was  formed,  and  have  had  a  daily  importance  in 
the  life  of  mankind.  Their  uniformity  over  immense  areas  of  the  earth,  and 
their  preservation  through  immense  periods  of  time,  are  consequences  of  their 
connection  with  the  marriage-law. 

When  the  Malayan  system  of  consanguinity  was  formed,  it  may  be  supposed 
that  a  mother  could  perceive  that  her  own  son  and  daughter  stood  to  her  in 
certain  relationships  that  could  be  expressed  by  suitable  terms  ;  that  her  own 
mother  and  her  mother's  own  mother  stood  to  her  in  certain  other  relation- 
ships ;  that  the  other  children  of  her  own  mother  stood  to  her  in  still  other 


SEQUENCE  OF  INSTITUTIONS.  519 

relationships  ;  and  that  the  children  of  her  own  daughter  stood  to  her  in  still 
others — all  of  which  might  be  expressed  by  suitable  terms.  It  would  give  the 
beginning  of  a  system  of  consanguinity  founded  upon  obvious  blood-ties.  It 
would  lay  the  foundation  of  the  five  categories  of  relations  in  the  Malayan  sys- 
tem, and  without  any  reference  to  marriage-law. 

When  marriage  in  the  group  and  the  consanguine  family  came  in,  of  both  of 
•which  the  Malayan  system  affords  evidence,  the  system  would  spread  over  the 
group  upon  the  basis  of  these  primary  conceptions.  With  the  intermarriage  of 
brothers  and  sisters,  own  and  collateral,  in  a  group,  the  resulting  system  of  con- 
sanguinity and  affinity  would  be  Malayan.  Any  hypothesis  explanatory  of  the 
origin  of  the  Malayan  system  must  fail  if  these  facts  are  ignored.  Such  a  form 
of  marriage  and  of  the  family  would  create  the  Malayan  system.  It  would  be 
a  system  of  consanguinity  and  affinity  from  the  beginning,  and  explainable 
only  as  such. 

If  these  views  are  correct,  it  will  not  be  necessary  to  consider  in  detail  the 
points  of  Mr.  McLennan's  hypothesis,  which  is  too  obscure  for  a  philosophical 
discussion,  and  utterly  incapable  of  affording  an  explanation  of  the  origin  of 
these  systems. 

III.  That  Air.  McLtnnan^s  objections  to  the  hypothesis  presented  in  '^Systems 
of  Consanguinity ,"  etc. ,  are  of  nc  foire. 

The  same  misapprehension  of  the  facts,  and  the  same  confusion  of  ideas 
which  mark  his  last  Essay,  also  appear  in  this.  He  does  not  hold  distinct 
the  relationships  by  consanguinity  and  those  by  marriage,  when  both  exist  be- 
tween the  same  persons  ;  and  he  makes  mistakes  in  the  relationships  of  the 
systems  also.  , 

It  will  not  be  necessary  to  follow  step  by  step  Mr.  Mcl.ennan's  criticisms 
upon  this  hypothesis,  some  of  which  are  verbal,  others  of  which  are  distorted, 
and  none  of  which  touch  the  essence  of  the  questions  involved.  The  first  pro- 
position he  attempts  to  refute  is  stated  by  him  as  follows  :  "  The  Malayan 
system  of  relationships  is  a  system  of  blood-relationships.  Mr.  Morgan  assumes 
this,  and  says  nothing  of  the  obstacles  to  making  the  assumption  "  (p.  342).  It 
is  in  part  a  system  of  blood-relationships,  and  in  part  of  marriage-relationships. 
The  fact  is  patent.  The  relationships  of  father  and  mother,  brother  and  sister, 
elder  or  younger,  son  and  daughter,  uncle  and  aunt,  nephew  and  niece  and 
cousin,  grandfather  and  mother,  grandson  and  daughter  ;  and  also  of  brother- 
in-law  and  sister-in-law,  son-in-law  and  daughter-in-law,  besides  others,  are 
given  in  the  Tables  and  were  before  Mr.  McLennan.  These  systems  speak 
for  themselves,  and  could  say  nothing  else  but  that  they  are  systems  of  consan- 
guinity and  affinity.  Does  Mr.  Mcl^ennan  suppose  that  the  tribes  named  had 
a  system  other  or  different  from  that  presented  in  the  Tables?  If  he  did,  he 
was  bound  to  produce  it,  or  to  establish  the  fact  of  its  existence.  He  does 
neither. 

Two  or  three  of  his  special  points  may  be  considered.  "  And  indeed,"  he 
remarks  (p.  346),  "  if  a  man  is  called  the  son  of  a  woman  who  did  not  bear 
him,  his  being  so  called  clearly  defies  explanation  on  the  principle  of  natural 
descents.  The  reputed  relationship  is  not,  in  that  case,  the  one  actually  exist- 
ing as  near  as  the  parentage  of  individuals  could  be  known  ;  and  accordingly 


520 


ANCIENT  SOCIETY. 


Mr.  Morgan's  proposition  is  not  made  out."  On  the  face  of  the  statement  the 
question  involved  is  not  one  of  parentage,  but  of  marriage-relationship.  A  man 
calls  his  mother's  sister  his  mother,  and  she  calls  him  her  son,  although  she  did 
not  bear  him.  This  is  the  case  in  the  Malayan,  Turanian  and  Ganowanian  sys- 
tems. Whether  we  have  consanguine  or  punaluan  marriages,  a  man's  mother's 
sister  is  the  wife  of  his  reputed  father.  She  is  his  step-mother  as  near  as  our 
system  furnishes  an  analogue  ;  and  among  ourselves  a  stepmother  is  called 
mother,  and  she  calls  her  step-son,  son.  It  defies  explanation,  it  is  true,  as  a 
blood-relationship,  which  it  does  not  pretend  to  be,  but  as  a  marriage-relation- 
ship, which  it  pretends  to  be,  this  is  the  explanation.  The  reasoning  of  Mr. 
McLennan  is  equally  specious  and  equally  faulty  in  a  number  of  cases. 

Passing  from  the  Malayan  to  the  Turanian  system,  he  remarks  (p.  354)  :  "  It 
follows  from  this  that  a  man's  son  and  his  sister's  daughter,  while  reptitea 
brother  and  sister,  would  have  been  free,  when  the  '  tribal  organization  '  had 
been  established,  to  intermany,  for  they  belonged  to  different  tribes  of  descent." 
From  this  he  branches  out  in  an  argument  of  two  or  three  pages  to  prove  that 
"Mr.  Morgan's  reason,  then,  is  insufficient."  If  Mr.  McLennan  had  studied 
the  Turanian  or  the  Ganowanian  system  of  consanguinity  with  very  moderate 
attention,  he  would  have  found  that  a  "  man's  son  and  his  sister's  daughter  " 
are  not  "  reputed  brother  and  sister."  On  the  contrary,  they  are  cottsiiis.  This 
is  one  of  the  most  obvious  as  well  as  important  differences  between  the  Malayan 
and  Turanian  systems,  and  the  one  which  expresses  the  difference  between  the 
consanguine  family  of  the  Malayan,  and  the  punaluan  family  of  the  Turanian 
system. 

The  general  reader  will  hardly  take  the  trouble  necessary  to  master  the 
details  of  these  systems.  Unless  he  can  follow  the  relationships  with  ease  and 
freedom,  a  discussion  of  the  system  will  be  a  source  of  perplexity  rather  than 
of  pleasure.  Mr.  McLennan  uses  the  terms  of  relationship  freely,  but  without, 
in  all  cases,  using  them  correctly. 

In  another  place  (p.  360),  Mr.  McLennan  attributes  to  me  a  distinction 
between  marriage  and  cohabitation  which  I  have  not  made  ;  and  foil' jws  it  with 
a  rhetorical  flourish  quite  equal  to  the  best  in  "  Primitive  Marriage." 

Finally,  Mr.  McLennan  plants  himself  upon  two  alleged  mistakes  which 
vitiate,  in  his  opinion,  my  explanation  of  the  origin  of  the  classificatory  system. 
"  In  attempting  to  explain  the  origin  of  the  classificatory  system,  Mr.  Morgan 
made  two  radical  mistakes.  His  first  mistake  was,  that  he  did  not  steadily 
contemplate  the  main  peculiarity  of  the  system — its  classification  of  the  con- 
nected persons  ;  that  he  did  not  seek  the  origin  of  the  system  in  the  origin 
of  the  classification  "  (p.  ^60).  What  is  the  diff'erence  in  this  case,  between  the 
system  and  the  classi/id^tn?  The  two  mean  the  same  thing,  and  cannot  by 
any  possibility  be  made  to  mean  anything  different.  To  seek  the  oiigin  of  one 
is  to  seek  the  origin  of  the  other. 

"The  second  mistake,  or  rather  I  should  say  error,  was  to  have  so  lightly 
assumed  the  system  to  be  a  system  of  blood  ties"  (p.  361).  There  is  no  error 
here,  since  the  persons  named  in  the  Tables  are  descended  from  common  ances- 
tors, or  connected  by  marriage  with  some  one  or  more  of  them.  They  are  the 
same  persons  who  are  described  in  the  Table  showing  the  Aryan,  Semitic,  and 


si:  q  uence  of  ins  titu  tions.  5  2 1 

Uralian  systems  (Consanguinity,  pp.  79-127).  In  each  and  all  of  these  sys- 
tems they  are  bound  to  each  other  in  fact  by  consanguinity  and  affinity.  In  the 
latter  each  relationship  is  specialized  ;  in  the  former  they  are  classified  in  cate- 
gories ;  but  in  all  alike  the  ultimate  basis  is  the  same,  namely,  actual  consan- 
guinity and  affinity.  Marriage  in  the  group  in  the  former,  and  marriage 
between  single  pairs  in  the  latter,  produced  the  difference  between  them.  In  the 
Malayan,  Turanian  and  Ganowanian  systems,  there  is  a  solid  basis  for  the  blood- 
relationships  they  exhibit  in  the  common  descent  of  the  persons  ;  and  for  the 
marriage-relationships  we  must  look  to  the  form  of  marriage  they  indicate. 
Examination  and  comparison  show  that  two  distinct  forms  of  marriage  are 
requisite  to  explain  the  Malayan  and  Turanian  systems  ;  whence  the  applica- 
tion, as  tests  of  consanguine  marriage  in  one  case,  and  a  punaluan  marriage 
in  the  other. 

While  the  terms  of  relationship  are  constantly  used  in  salutation,  it  is  because 
they  are  terms  of  relationship  that  they  are  so  used.  Mr.  McLennan's  attempt 
to  turn  them  into  conventional  modes  of  addressing  persons  is  futile.  Although 
he  lays  great  stress  upon  this  view  he  makes  no  use  of  them  as  "  modes  of  ad- 
dress "  in  attempting  to  explain  their  origin.  So  far  as  he  makes  any  use  of  them 
he  employs  them  strictly  as  terms  of  consanguinity  and  affinity.  It  was  as  im- 
possible that  "  a  system  of  modes  of  addressing  persons"  should  have  grown 
up  independently  of  the  system  of  consanguinity  and  affinity  (p.  373),  as  that 
language  should  have  grown  up  independently  of  the  ideas  it  represents  and 
expresses.  What  could  have  given  to  these  terms  their  significance  as  used  in 
addressing  relatives,  but  the  relationship  whether  of  consanguinity  or  affinity 
which  they  expressed  ?  The  mere  want  of  a  mode  of  addressing  persons  could 
never  have  given  such  stupenduous  systems,  identical  in  minute  details  over 
immense  sections  of  the  earth. 

Upon  the  essential  difference  between  Mr.  INIcLennan's  explanation  of  the 
origin  of  the  classificatory  system,  and  the  one  presented  in  this  volume — 
whether  it  is  a  system  of  modes  of  addressing  persons,  or  a  system  of  consan- 
guinity and  affinity — I  am  quite  content  to  submit  the  question  to  the  judgment 
of  the  reader. 


PART    IV. 
GROWTH  OF  THE  IDEA  OF  PROPERTY. 


CHAPTER  I. 

THE   THREE   RULES   OF   INHERITANCE. 

Property  in  the  Status  of  Savagery. — Slow  Rate  of  Progress. — 
First  Rule  of  Inheritance. — Property  Distributed  among  the  Gen- 
tiles.— Property  in  the  Lower  Status  of  Barbarism. — Germ  of  Second 
Rule  of  Inheritance. — Distributed  among  Agnatic  Kindred. — Im- 
proved Character  of  Man. — Property  in  Middle  Status. — Rule  ok 
Inheritance  imperfectly  Known. — Agnatic  Inheritance  Probable. 

It  remains  to  consider  the  growth  of  property  in  the 
several  ethnical  periods,  the  rules  that  sprang  up  with  re- 
spect to  its  ownership  and  inheritance,  and  the  influence 
which  it  exerted  upon  ancient  society. 

The  earliest  ideas  of  property  were  intimately  associated 
with  the  procurement  of  subsistence,  which  was  the  primary 
need.  The  objects  of  ownership  would  naturally  increase 
in  each  successive  ethnical  period  with  the  m uTtlpTic a t i o n 
of  those  arts  upon  which  the  means  of  subsistence  de- 
j^e^dod •  Til e  "grcr^'  llr "uF-pi'upei  Ly  w untd  Ih li s"Teep~p"are' i 
with  the  progress  of  inventions  and  discoveries.  Each 
ethnical  period  shows  a  marked  advance  upon  its  predeces- 
sor, not  only  in  the  number  of  inventions,  but  also  in  the 
variety  and  amount  of  property  which  resulted  therefrom. 
The  multiplicity  of  the  forms  of  property  would  be  accom- 
panied by  the  growth  of  certain  regulations  with  reference 
to  its  possession  and  inheritance.  The  customs  upon  which 
these  rules  of  proprietary  possession  and  inheritance  de- 
pend, are  determined  and  modified  by  the  condition  and 
progress  of  the  social  organization.     The  growth  of  prop- 


526 


ANCIENT  SOCIETY. 


erty  is  thus  closely  connected  with  the  increase  of  inven- 
tions and  discoveries,  and  with  the  improvement  of  social 
institutions  which  mark  the  several  ethnical  periods  of  hu- 
man progress. 

I.  Property  in  the  Status  of  Savagery. 

In  any  view  of  the  case,  it  is  difficult  to  conceive  of  the 
condition  of  mankind  in  this  early  period  of  their  existence, 
when  divested  of  all  they  had  gained  through  inventions 
and  discoveries,  and  through  the  growth  of  ideas  em- 
bodied in  institutions,  usages  and  customs.  Human  pro- 
gress from  a  state  of  absolute  ignorance  and  inexperience 
was  slow  in  time,  but  geometrical  in  ratio.  Mankind  may 
be  traced  by  a  chain  of  necessary  inferences  back  to  a  time 
when,  ignorant  of  fire,  without  articulate  language,  and 
without  artificial  weapons,  they  depended,  like  the  wild 
animals,  upon  the  spontaneous  fruits  of  the  earth.  Slow- 
ly, almost  imperceptibly,  they  advanced  through  savagery, 
from  gesture  language  and  imperfect  sounds  to  articulate 
speech  ;  from  the  club,  as  the  first  weapon,  to  the  spear 
pointed  with  flint,  and  finally  to  the  bow  and  arrow  ;  from  the 
flint-knife  and  chisel  to  the  stone  axe  and  hammer ;  from 
the  ozier  and  cane  basket  to  the  basket  coated  with  clay, 
which  gave  a  vessel  for  boiling  food  with  fire  ;  and,  finally, 
to  the  art  of  pottery,  which  gave  a  vessel  able  to  withstand 
the  fire.  In  the  means  of  subsistence,  they  advanced  from 
natural  fruits  in  a  restricted  habitat  to  scale  and  shell  fish 
on  the  coasts  of  the  sea,  and  finally  to  bread  roots  and 
game.  Rope  and  string-making  from  filaments  of  bark,  a 
species  of  cloth  made  of  vegetable  pulp,  the  tanning  of 
skins  to  be  used  as  apparel  and  as  a  covering  for  tents,  and 
finally  the  house  constructed  of  poles  and  covered  with 
bark,  or  made  of  plank  split  by  stone  wedges,  belong,  with 
those  previously  named,  to  the  Status  of  Savagery.  Among 
minor  inventions  may  be  mentioned  the  fire-drill,  the  moc- 
casin and  the  snow-shoe. 

Before  the  close  of  this  period,  mankind  had  learned  to 
support  themselves  in  numbers  in  comparison  with  primi- 
tive times;  they  had  propagated   themselves  over  the  face 


THE   THREE  RULES  OF  INHERITANCE.  $2/ 

of  the  earth,  and  come  into  possession  of  all  the  possibili- 
ties of  the  continents  in  favor  of  human  advancement.  In 
social  organization,  they  had  advancediiQia  the  consanguine 
horde  into  tribes  organized  in  gentes,  and  thus  became 
possessed  of  the  germs  of  the  principal  governmental  insti- 
tutions. The  human  race  was  now  successfully  launched 
upon  its  great  career  for  the  attainment  of  civilization, 
which  even  then,  with  articulate  language  among  inven- 
tions, with  the  art  of  pottery  among  arts,  and  with  the 
gentes  among  institutions,  was  substantially  assured. 

The  period  of  savagery  wrought  immense  changes  in  the 
condition  of  mankind.  That  portion,  which  led  the  advance, 
had  finally  organized  gentile  society  and  developed  small 
tribes  with  villages  here  and  there  which  tended  to  stimu- 
late the  inventive  capacities.  Their  rude  energies  and  ruder 
arts  had  been  chiefly  devoted  to  subsistence.  They  had 
not  attained  to  the  village  stockade  for  defense,  nor  to  fari- 
naceous food,  and  the  scourge  of  cannibalism  still  pursued 
them.  The  arts,  inventions  and  institutions  named  repre- 
sent nearly  the  sum  of  the  acquisitions  of  mankind  in  sav- 
agery, with  the  exception  of  the  marvelous  progress  in- 
language.  In  the  aggregate  it  seems  small,  but  it  was  im- 
mense potentially  ;  because  it  embraced  the  rudiments  of 
language,  of  government,  of  the  family,  of  religion,  of  house 
architecture  and  of  property,  together  with  the  principal 
germs  of  the  arts  of  life.  All  these  their  descendants 
wrought  out  more  fully  in  the  period  of  barbarism,  and 
their  civilized  descendants  are  still  perfecting. 

But  the  property  of  savages  was  inconsiderable.     Their 
ideas   concerning  its  value,  its  desirability  and  its  inherit- 
ance were   feeble.     Rude  weapons,  fabrics,  utensils,  appa- 
rel, implements  of  flint,  stone  and  bone,  and  personal  orna- 
ments represent  the  chief  items  of  property  in  savage  life. 
A  passion  for  its  possession  had  scarcely  been  formed  in  their 
minds,  because  the  thing  itself  scarcely  existed."  It  was  left 
to  the  then  distant  period  of  civilization  to  develop  into 
L  full  vitality  that  "  greed  of  gain  "  {studiuni  lucri),  which  is 
^now  such  a  commanding  force  in  the  human  mind.     Lands, 
\ 


528  ANCIENT  SOCIETY. 

as  yet  hardly  a  subject  of  property,  were  owned  by  the  tribes 
in  common,  while  tenement  houses  were  owned  jointly  by 
their  occupants.  Upon  articles  purely  personal,  which  were 
increasing  with  the  slow  progress  of  inventions,  the  great 
%^  passion  was'nbhrrsHing  its  nascenTpowers.  Those  esteemed 
^      jnost^ valuable  were  dej30sked_in_Jtlxe.^aY^.^fjth 

proprietor  for  his  continued  use_m-tlie...spirit4and.  What 
remained  was  sufficient  to  raise  the  question  of  its  inherit- 
ance. Of  the  manner  of  its  distribution  before  the  organ- 
ization into  gentes,  our  information  is  limited,  or  altogether 
wanting.  With  the  institution  of  the  gens  came  in  the  first 
great  rule  of  inheritance,  which  distributed  the  effects  of  a 
deceased  person  among  his  gentiles.  Practically  they  were 
appropriated  by  the  nearest  of  kin  ;  but  the  principle  was 
general,  that  the  property  should  remain  in  the  gens  of 
the  decedent,  and  be  distributed  among  its  members.  This 
principle  was  maintained  into  civilization  by  the  Grecian 
and  Latin  gentes.  Children  inherited  from  their  mother, 
but  took  nothing  from  their  reputed  father. 
II.  Property  in  the  Lower  Status  of  Barbarism. 
From  the  invention  of  pottery  to  the  domestication  of 
animals,  or,  as  an  equivalent,  the  cultivation  of  maize  and 
plants  by  irrigation,  the  duration  of  the  period  must  have 
been  shorter  than  that  of  savagery.  With  the  exception 
of  the  art  of  pottery,  finger  weaving  and  the  art  of  culti- 
vation, in  America,  which  gave  farinaceous  food,  no  great 
invention  or  discovery  signalized  this  ethnical  period.  It 
was  more  distinguished  for  progress  in  the  development  of 
institutions.  Finger  weaving,  with  warp  and  woof,  seems 
to  belong  to  this  period,  and  it  must  rank  as  one  of  the 
greatest  of  inventions  ;  but  it  cannot  be  certainly  affirmed 
that  the  art  was  not  attained  in  savagery.  The  Iroquois 
and  other  tribes  of  America  in  the  same  status,  manu- 
factured belts  and  burden-straps  with  warp  and  woof  of 
excellent  quality  and  finish  ;  using  fine  twine  made  of  fila- 
ments of  elm  and  basswood  bark.*  The  principles  of  this 
great  invention,  which  has  since  clothed  the  human  family, 

'  League  of  the  Iroquois,  p.  364. 


THE  THREE  RULES  OF  INHERITANCE. 


529 


were  perfectly  realized  ;  but  they  were  unable  to  extend  it 
to  the  production  of  the  woven  garment.  Picture  writing 
also  seems  to  have  made  its  first  appearance  in  this  period. 
If  it  originated  earlier,  it  now  received  a  very  considerable 
development.  It  is  interesting  as  one  of  the  stages  of  an 
art  which  culminated  in  the  invention  of  a  phonetic  alpha- 
bet. The  series  of  connected  inventions  seem  to  have  been 
the  following:  i.  Gesture  Language,  or  the  language  of 
personal  symbols  ;  2.  Picture  Writing,  or  idiographic  sym- 
bols ;  3.  Hieroglyphs,  or  conventional  symbols  ;  4.  Hiero- 
glyphs of  phonetic  power,  or  phonetic  symbols  used  in  a 
syllabus;  and  5,  a  Phonetic  Alphabet,  or  written  sounds. 
Since  a  language  of  written  sounds  was  a  growth  through 
successive  stages  of  development,  the  rise  of  its  antecedent 
processes  is  both  important  and  instructive.  The  charac- 
ters on  the  Copan  monuments  are  apparently  hieroglyphs 
of  the  grade  of  conventional  symbols.  They  show  that  the 
American  aborigines,  who  practiced  the  first  three  forms, 
were  proceeding  independently  in  the  direction  of  a  pho- 
netic alphabet. 

The  invention  of  the  stockade  as  a  means  of  village 
defense,  of  a  raw-hide  shield  as  a  defense  against  the  arrow, 
which  had  now  become  a  deadly  missile,  of  the  several  vari- 
eties of  the  war-club,  armed  with  an  encased  stone  or  with  a 
point  of  deer  horn,  seem  also  to  belong  to  this  period.  At 
all  events  they  were  in  common  use  among  the  American  In- 
dian tribes  in  the  Lower  Status  of  barbarism  when  discov- 
ered. The  spear  pointed  with  flint  or  bone  was  not  a  cus- 
tomary weapon  with  the  forest  tribes,  though  sometimes 
used.*  This  weapon  belongs  to  the  period  of  savagery,  be- 
fore the  bow  and  arrow  were  invented,  and  reappears  as  a 
prominent  weapon  in  the  Upper  Status  of  barbarism,  when 
the  copper-pointed  spear  came  into  use,  and  close  combat 
became  the  mode  of  warfare.  The  bow  and  arrow  and  the 
war-club  were  the  principal  weapons  of  the  American  abo- 


'  For  example,  the  Ojibwas  used  the   lance   or  spear,  She-ma'-gun,  pointed 
with  flint  or  bone. 
34 


530  ANCIENT  SOCIRTY. 

rigines  in  the  Lower  Status  of  barbarism.  Some  progress 
was  made  in  pottery  in  the  increased  size  of  the  vessels  pro- 
duced, and  in  their  ornamentation;'  but  it  remained  ex- 
tremely rude  to  the  end  of  the  period.  There  was  a  sensible 
advance  in  house  architecture,  in  the  size  and  mode  of  con- 
struction. Among  minor  inventions  were  the  air-gun  for 
bird-shooting,  the  wooden  mortar  and  pounder  for  reducing 
maize  to  flour,  and  the  stone  mortar  for  preparing  paints  ; 
earthen  and  stone  pipes,  with  the  use  of  tobacco ;  bone  and 
stone  implements  of  higher  grades,  with  stone  hammers  and 
mauls,  the  handle  and  upper  part  of  the  stone  being  encased 
in  raw  hide  ;  and  moccasins  and  belts  ornamented  with  por- 
cupine quills.  Some  of  these  inventions  were  borrowed, 
not  unlikely,  from  tribes  in  the  Middle  Status  ;  for  it  was  by 
this  process  constantly  repeated  that  the  more  advanced 
tribes  lifted  up  those  below  them,  as  fast  as  the  latter  were 
able  to  appreciate  and  to  appropriate  the  means  of  progress. 

Thoxultivation  of  maize  and  plants  gave  the  people  un- 
leavened bread,  the  Indian  siiccotaslirand  hominy.  It  also 
tended  to_introduce  a  new  species  of  property,  namely,  cul- 
tivated lands  or  gar^ns.  AltliouglTTTands  were  ownedjn 
common  by  the  tribe,  a  possessory  right  to  cultivated  land 
was  now  recognized  in  the  individual,  or  in  the  group,  which 
became  a  subject  of  inheritance.  The  group  united  in  a 
common  household  were  mostly  of  the  same  gens,  and  the 
rule  of  inheritance  would  not  allow  it  to  be  detached  from 
the  kinship. 

The  property  and  effects  of  husband  and  wife  were  kept 
distinct,  and  remained  after  their  demise  in  the  gens  to 
which  each  respectively  belonged.  The  wife  and  children 
took  nothing  from  the  husband  and  father,  and  the  husband 
took  nothing  from  the  wife.  Among  the  Iroquois,  if  a  man 
died  leaving  a  wife  and  children,  his  property  was  distri- 
buted among  his  gentiles  in  such  a  manner   that  his  sisters 

*  The  Creeks  made  earthen  vessels  holding  from  two  to  ten  gallons  (Adair's 
History  of  American  Indians,  p.  424)  ;  and  the  Iroquois  ornamented  their  jars 
and  pipes  with  miniature  human  faces  attached  as  buttons.  This  discovery  was 
recently  made  by  Air.  Y .  A.  Gushing,  of  the  Smithsonian  Institution. 


THE   THREE  RULES  OF  INHERITANCE.  531 

and  their  children,  and  his  maternal  uncles,  would  receive  the 
most  of  it.  His  brothers  might  receive  a  small  portion.  If 
a  woman  died,  leaving  a  husband  and  children,  her  children, 
her  sisters,  and  her  mother  and  her  sisters  inherited  her 
effects  ;  but  the  greater  portion  was  assigned  to  her  children. 
In  each  case  the  property  remained  in  the  gens.  Among 
the  Ojibwas,  the  effects  of  a  mother  were  distributed  among 
her  children,  if  old  enough  to  use  them  ;  otherwise,  or  in 
default  of  children,  they  went  to  her  sisters,  and  to  her 
mother  and  her  sisters,  to  the  exclusion  of  her  brothers. 
Although  they  had  changed  descent  to  the  male  line,  the 
inheritance  still  followed  the  rule  which  prevailed  when 
descent  was  in  the  female  line. 

The  variety  and  amount  of  property  were  greater  than  in 
savagery,  but  still  not  sufficient  to  develop  a  strong  senti- 
ment in  relation  to  inheritance.  Ln^the  mode  of  distribu- 
t i onabove  given  may  be  recognized,  as  elsewhere  stated, 
the  germ  of  the  second  great  rule  of  inheritance,  which 
gave  the  property  to  the^aghatic  Icmdred,  to  the  exclusion 
of  the  remaining  gentiles.  Agnation  and  agnatic  kindred, 
as  now  defined,  assume  descent  in  the  male  line;  but  the 
persons  included  would  be  very  different  from  those  with 
descent  in  the  female  line.  The  principle  is  the  same  in 
both  cases,  and  the  terms  seem  as  applicable  in  the  one  as 
in  the  other.  With  descent  in  the  female  line,  the  agnates 
are  those  persons  who  can  trace  their  descent  through  fe- 
males exclusively  from  the  same  common  ancestor  with  the 
intestate ;  in  the  other  case,  who  can  trace  their  descent  ■ 
through  males  exclusively.  It  is  the  blood  connection  of 
persons  within  the  gens  by  direct  descent,  in  a  given  line, 
from  the  same  common  ancestor  which  lies  at  the  founda- 
tion of  agnatic  relationship. 

At  the  present  time,  among  the  advanced  Indian  tribes, 
repugnance  to  gentile  inheritance  has  begun  to  manifest 
itself.  In  some  it  has  been  overthrown,  and  an  exclusive 
inheritance  in  children  substituted  in  its  place.  Evidence 
of  this  repugnance  has  elsewhere  been  given,  among  the 
Iroquois,  Creeks,  Cherokees,  Choctas,  Menominees,  Crows 


532 


ANCIENT  SOCIETY. 


and  Ojibwas,  with  references  to  the  devices  adopted  to 
enable  fathers  to  give  their  property,  now  largely  increased 
in  amount,  to  their  children. 

The  diminution  of  cannibalism,  that  brutalizing  scourge 
of  savagery,  was  very  marked  in  the  Older  Period  of  bar- 
barism. It  was  abandoned  as  a  common  practice;  but  re- 
mained as  a  war  practice,  as  elsewhere  explained,  through 
this,  and  into  the  Middle  Period.  In  this  form  it  was  found 
in  the  principal  tribes  of  the  United  States,  Mexico,  and 
Central  America.  The  acquisition  of  farinaceous  food  was 
the  principal  means  of  extricating  mankind  from  this  sav- 
age custom. 

We  have  now  passed  over,  with  a  mere  glance,  two  ethni- 
cal periods,  which  covered  four-fifths,  at  least,  of  the  entire 
existence  of  mankind  upon  the  earth.  While  in  the  Lower 
Status,  the  higher  attributes  of  man  began  to  manifest 
themselves.  Personal  dignity,  eloquence  in  speech,  relig- 
ious sensibility,  rectitude,  manliness  and  courage  were  now 
common  traits  of  character;  but  cruelty,  treachery  and 
fanaticism  were  equally  common.  Element  worship  in 
religion,  with  a  dim  conception  of  personal  gods,  and  of  a 
Great  Spirit,  rude  verse-making,  joint-tenement  houses,  and 
bread  from  maize,  belong  to  this  period.  jft_gjso  produced 
.the  syndyasmian  family,  and  the  confederacy  of  tribes  or- 
ganized in  gentes  and  phratrics.  The  imagination,  that 
great  faculty  which  has  contributed  so  largely  to  the  eleva- 
tion of  mankind,  was  now  producing  an  unwritten  litera- 
ture of  myths,  legends  and  traditions,  which  had  already 
become  a  powerful  stimulus  upon  the  race. 

III.  Property  in  the  Uliddle  Status  of  Barbarism. 

The  condition  of  mankind  in  this  ethnical  period  has 
been  more  completely  lost  than  that  of  any  other.  It  was 
exhibited  by  the  Village  Indians  of  North  and  South  Amer- 
ica in  barbaric  splendor  at  the  epoch  of  their  discovery. 
Their  governmental  institutions,  their  religious  tenets,  their 
plan  of  domestic  life,  their  arts  and  their  rules  in  relation 
to  the  ownership  and  inheritance  of  property,  might  have 
been  completely  obtained  ;  but  the  opportunity  was  allowed 


THE  THREE  RULES  OF  INHERITANCE.  533 

to  escape.     All  that  remains  are  scattered  portions  of  the 
truth  buried  in  misconceptions  and  romantic  tales. 

This  period  opens  in  the  Eastern  hemisphei'e  with  the 
domestication  of  animals,  and  in  the  Western  with  the  ap- 
pearance of  the  Village  Indians,  living  in  large  joint-tene- 
ment houses  of  adobe  brick,  and,  in  some  areas,  of  stone 
laid  in  courses.  It  was  attended  with  the  cultivation  of 
maize  and  plants  by  irrigation,  which  required  artificial 
canals,  and   garden   beds   laid   out   in  squares,  with  raised 

ridcres  to  contain  the  water  until  absorbed.     When  discov- 
fc>  » 

ered,  they  were  well  advanced  toward  the  close  of  the  Mid- 
dle Period,  a  portion  of  them  having  made  bronze,  which 
brought  them  near  the  higher  process  of  smelting  iron  ore./ 
The  joint-tenement  house  was  in  the  nature  of  a  fortress,' 
and  held  an  intermediate  position  between  the  stockaded 
village  of  the  Lower,  and  the  walled  city  of  the  Upper 
Status.  There  were  no  cities,  in  the  proper  sense  of  the 
term,  in  America  when  discovered.  In  the  art  of  war  they 
had  made  but  little  progress,  except  in  defense,  by  the  con- 
struction of  great  houses  generally  impregnable  to  Indian 
assault.  But  they  had  invented  the  quilted  mantle  {escau- 
piles),  stuffed  with  cotton,  as  a  further  shield  against  the 
arrow,'  and  the  two-edged  sword  [inacuahuitr)^  each  edge 
having  a  row  of  angular  flint  points  imbedded  in  the  wooden 
blade.  They  still  used  the  bow  and  arrow,  the  spear,  and 
the  war-club,  flint  knives  and  hatchets,  and  stone  imple- 
ments,' although  they  had  the  copper  axe  and  chisel,  which 
for  some  reason  never  came  into  general  use. 

To  maize,  beans,  squashes  and  tobacco,  were  now  added 
cotton,  pepper,  tomato,  cacao,  and  the  care  of  certain  fruits. 
A  beer  was  made  by  fermenting  the  juice  of  the  maguey. 
The  Iroquois,  however,  had  produced  a  similar  beverage  by 
fermenting  maple  sap.  Earthen  vessels  of  capacity  to  hold 
several  gallons,  of  fine  texture  and  superior  ornamentation, 
w-ere  produced  by  improved  methods  in  the  ceramic  art. 
Bowls,  pots   and    water-jars  were   manufactured    in    abun- 


'  Hen-era,  1.  c.,  iv,  16.  ^  lb.,  iii,  13  ;  iv,  16,  137.    Clavigero,  ii,  165. 

^  Clavigero,  ii,  23S.      Herrera,  ii,  145  ;  iv,  133. 


5  34  ANCIENT  SOCIE  TY. 

dance.  The  discovery  and  use  of  the  native  metals  first  for 
ornaments,  and  finally  for  implements  and  utensils,  such  as 
the  copper  axe  and  chisel,  belong  to  this  period.  The  melt- 
ing of  these  metals  in  the  crucible,  with  the  probable  use  of 
the  blow-pipe  and  charcoal,  and  casting  them  in  moulds, 
the  production  of  bronze,  rude  stone  sculptures,  the  woven 
garment  of  cotton,^  the  house  of  dressed  stone,  ideographs 
or  hieroglyphs  cut  on  the  grave-posts  of  deceased  chiefs, 
the  calendar  for  measuring  time,  and  the  solstitial  stone  for 
marking  the  seasons,  cyclopean  walls,  the  domestication  of 
the  llama,  of  a  species  of  dog,  of  the  turkey  and  other 
fowls,  belong  to  the  same  period  in  America.  A  priesthood 
organized  in  a  hierarchy,  and  distinguished  by  a  costume, 
personal  gods  with  idols  to  represent  them,  and  human 
sacrifices,  appear  for  the  first  time  in  this  ethnical  period. 
Two  large  Indian  pueblos,  Mexico  and  Cusco,  now  appear, 
containing  over  twenty  thousand  inhabitants,  a  number  un- 
known in  the  previous  period.  The  aristocratic  element  in 
society  began  to  manifest  itself  in  feeble  forms  among  the 
chiefs,  civil  and  military,  through  increased  numbers  under 
the  same  government,  and  the  growing  complexity  of 
affairs. 

Turning  to  the  Eastern  hemisphere,  we  find  its  native 
tribes,  in  the  corresponding  period,  with  domestic  animals 
yielding  them  a  meat  and  milk  subsistence,  but  probably 
without  horticultural  and  without  farinaceous  food.  When 
the  great  discovery  was  made  that  the  wild  horse,  cow, 
sheep,  ass,  sow  and  goat  might  be  tamed,  and,  when  pro- 
duced in  flocks  and  herds,  become  a  source  of  permanent 
subsistence,  it  must  have  given  a  powerful  impulse  to 
human  progress.  But  the  effect  would  not  become  general 
until  pastoral  life  for  the  creation  and  maintenance  of  flocks 
and  herds  became  established.  Europe,  as  a  forest  area  in 
the  main,  was  unadapted  to  the  pastoral  state ;  but  the 
grass  plains  of  high  Asia,  and  upon  the  Euphrates,  the 
Tigris  and  other  rivers  of  Asia,  were  the  natural  homes  of 
the  pastoral  tribes.    Thither  they  would  naturally  tend  ;  and 

'  Hakluyt's  Coll.  of  Voyages,  1.  c,  iii,  377- 


THE  THREE  RULES  OF  INHERITANCE.  535 

to  these  areas  we  trace  our  own  remote  ancestors,  where 
they  were  found  confronting  like  pastoral  Semitic  tribes. 
The  cultivation  of  cereals  and  plants  must  have  preceded 
their  migration  from  the  grass  plains  into  the  forest  areas 
of  Western  Asia  and  of  Europe,  It  would  be  forced  upon 
them  by  the  necessities  of  the  domestic  animals  now  incor- 
porated in  their  plan  of  life.  There  are  reasons,  therefore, 
for  supposing  that  the  cultivation  of  cereals  by  the  Aryan 
tribes  preceded  their  western  migration,  with  the  exception 
perhaps  of  the  Celts.  Woven  fabrics  of  flax  and  wool,  and 
bronze  implements  and  weapons  appear  in  this  period  in 
the  Eastern  hemisphere. 

Such  were  the  inventions  and  discoveries  which  signalized 
the  Middle  Period  of  barbarism.  Society  was  now  more 
highly  organized,  and  its  affairs  were  becoming  more  com- 
plex. Differences  in  the  culture  of  the  two  hemispheres 
now  existed  in  consequence  of  their  unequal  endowments; 
but  the  main  current  of  progress  was  steadily  upward  to  a 
knowledge  of  iron  and  its  uses.  To  cross  the  barrier  into 
the  Upper  Status,  metallic  tools  able  to  hold  an  edge  and 
point  were  indispensable.  Iron  was  the  only  metal  able  to 
answer  these  requirements.  The  most  advanced  tribes  were 
arrested  at  this  barrier,  awaiting  the  invention  of  the  process 
of  smelting  iron  ore. 

From  the  foregoing  considerations  it  is  evident  that  a 
large  increase  of  personal  property  had  now  occurred,  and 
some  changes  in  the  relations  of  persons  to  land.  The  ter- 
ritorial domain  still  belonged  to  the  tribe  in  common  ;  but 
a  portion  was  now  set  apart  for  the  support  of  the  govern- 
ment, another  for  religious  uses,  and  another  and  more  im- 
portant portion,  that  from  which  the  people  derived  their 
subsistence,  was  divided  among  the  several  gentes,  or  com- 
munities of  persons  who  resided  in  the  same  pueblo  {supra, 
p.  200).  That  any  persons  owned  lands  or  houses  in  his  own 
right,  with  power  to  sell  and  convey  in  fee-simple  to  whom- 
soever he  pleased,  is  not  only  unestablished  but  improbable. 
Their  mode  of  owning  their  lands  in  common,  by  gentes, 
or  by  communities  of  persons,  their  j  oint-tenement  houses, 


536  ANCIENT  SOCIETY. 

and  their  mode  of  occupation  by  related  families,  precluded 
the  individual  ownership  of  houses  or  of  lands.  A  right  to 
sell  an  interest  in  such  lands  or  in  such  houses,  and  to  trans- 
fer the  same  to  a  stranger,  would  break  up  their  plan  of  life.* 
The  possessory  right,  which  we  must  suppose  existed  in  in- 
dividuals or  in  families,  was  inalienable,  except  within  the 
gens,  and  on  the  demise  of  the  person  would  pass  by  inher- 
itance to  his  or  her  gentile  heirs.  Joint-tenement  houses, 
and  lands  in  common,  indicate  a  plan  of  life  adverse  to  in- 
dividual ownership. 

The  Moqui  Village  Indians,  besides  their  seven  large  pue- 
blos and  their  gardens,  now  have  flocks  of  sheep,  horses 
and  mules,  and  considerable  other  personal  property.  They 
manufacture  earthen  vessels  of  many  sizes  and  of  excellent 
quality,  and  woolen  blankets  in  looms,  and  with  yarn  of 
their  own  production.  Major  J.  W.  Powell  noticed  the  fol- 
lowing case  at  the  pueblo  of  Oraybe,  which  shows  that  the 
husband  acquires  no  rights  over  the  property  of  the  wife,  or 
over  the  children  of  the  marriage.  A  Zunian  married  an 
Oraybe  woman,  and  had  by  her  three  children.  He  resided 
with  them  at  Oraybe  until  his  wife  died,  which  occurred 
while  Major  Powell  was  at  the  pueblo.  The  relatives  of  the 
deceased  wife  took  possession  of  her  children  and  of  her 
household  property;  leaving  to  him  his  horse,  clothing  and 
weapons.  Certain  blankets  which  belonged  to  him  he  was 
allowed  to  take,  but  those  belonging  to  his  Avife  remained. 
He  left  the  pueblo  with  Major  Powell,  saying  he  would  go 
with  him  to  Santa  Fe,  and  then  return  to  his  own  peo- 
ple  at  Zuni.     Another  case  of  a  similar  kind  occurred  at 

'  The  Rev.  Samuel  Gorman,  a  missionary  among  the  Laguna  Pueblo  Indians, 
remarks  in  an  address  before  the  Historical  Society  of  New  Mexico  (p.  12),  that 
"  the  right  of  property  belongs  to  the  female  part  of  the  family,  and  descends  in 
that  line  from  mother  to  daughter.  Their  land  is  held  in  common,  as  the  pro- 
perty of  the  community,  but  after  a  person  cultivates  a  lot  he  has  personal  claim 

\.<:>\\.,  which  he  can  sell  to  one  of  the  community Their  women, 

generally,  have  control  of  the  granary,  and  they  are  more  provident  than  their 
Spanish  neighboi-s  about  the  future.  Ordinarily  they  try  to  have  a  year's  pro- 
visions on  hand.  It  is  only  when  two  years  of  scarcity  succeed  each  other,  that 
Pueblos,  as  a  community,  suii'er  hunger." 


THE  THREE  RULES  OF  INHERITANCE.  537 

another  of  the  Moqui  pueblos  (She-po\v-e-luv-ih),  which 
also  came  to  the  notice  of  my  informant.  A  woman  died, 
leaving  children  and  a  husband,  as  well  as  property.  The 
children  and  the  property  were  taken  by  the  deceased 
wife's  relatives ;  all  the  husband  was  allowed  to  take  was 
his  clothing.  Whether  he  was  a  Moqui  Indian  or  from 
another  tribe,  Major  Powell,  who  saw  the  person,  did  not 
learn.  It  appears  from  these  cases  that  the  children  be- 
longed to  the  mother,  and  not  to  the  father,  and  that  he  was 
not  allowed  to  take  them  even  after  the  mother's  death. 
Such  also  was  the  usage  among  the  Iroquois  and  other 
northern  tribes.  Furthermore,  the  property  of  the  wife  was 
kept  distinct,  and  belonged  to  her  relatives  after  her  death. 
It  tends  to  show  that  the  wife  took  nothing  from  her  hus- 
band, as  an  implication  from  the  fact  that  the  husband  took 
nothing  from  the  wife.  Elsewhere  it  has  been  shown  that 
this  was  the  usage  among  the  Village  Indians  of  Mexico. 

Women,  as  well  as  men,  not  unlikely,  had  a  possessory 
right  to  such  rooms  and  sections  of  these  pueblo  houses  as 
they  occupied  ;  and  they  doubtless  transmitted  these  rights 
to  their  nearest  of  kin,  under  established  regulations.  We 
need  to  know  how  these  sections  of  each  pueblo  are  owned 
and  inherited,  whether  the  possessor  has  the  right  to  sell 
and  transfer  to  a  stranger,  and  if  not,  the  nature  and  limits 
of  his  possessory  right.  We  also  need  to  know  who  inherits 
the  property  of  the  males,  and  who  inherits  the  property  of 
the  females.  A  small  amount  of  well-directed  labor  would 
furnish  the  information  now  so  much  desired. 

The  Spanish  writers  have  left  the  land  tenure  of  the  south- 
ern tribes  in  inextricable  confusion.  When  they  found  a 
community  of  persons  owning  lands  in  common,  which  they 
could  not  alienate,  and  that  one  person  among  them  was 
recognized  as  their  chief,  they  at  once  treated  these  lands 
as  a  feudal  estate,  the  chief  as  a  feudal  lord,  and  the  people 
who  owned  the  lands  in  common  as  his  vassals.  At  best, 
it  was  a  perversion  of  the  facts.  One  thing  is  plain,  namely, 
that  these  lands  were  owned  in  common  by  a  community 
of  persons  ;  but  one,  not  less  essential,  is  not  given,  namely, 


538 


ANCIENT  SOCIETY. 


the  bond  of  union  which  held  these  persons  together.  If  a 
gens,  or  a  part  of  a  gens,  the  whole  subject  would  be  at 
once  understood. 

Descent  in  the  female  line  still  remained  in  some  of  the 
tribes  of  Mexico  and  Central  America,  while  in  others,  and 
probably  in  the  larger  portion,  it  had  been  changed  to  the 
male  line.  The  influence  of  property  must  have  caused  the 
change,  that  children  might  participate  as  agnates  in  the 
inheritance  of  their  father's  property.  Among  the  Mayas, 
descent  was  in  the  male  line,  while  among  the  Aztecs, 
Tezcucans,  Tlacopans  and  Tlascalans,  it  is  difficult  to  deter- 
mine whether  it  was  in  the  male  or  the  female  line.  It  is 
probable  that  descent  was  being  changed  to  the  male  line 
among  the  Village  Indians  generally,  with  remains  of  the 
archaic  rule  manifesting  themselves,  as  in  the  case  of  the 
office  of  Teuctli.  The  change  would  not  overthrow  gentile 
inheritance.  It  is  claimed  by  a  number  of  Spanish  writers 
that  the  children,  and  in  some  cases  the  eldest  son,  inherited 
the  property  of  a  deceased  father ;  but  such  statements, 
apart  from  an  exposition  of  their  system,  are  of  little  value. 

Among  the  Village  Indians,  we  should  expect  to  find 
the  second  great  rule  of  inheritance  which  distributed  the 
property  among  the  agnatic  kindred.  With  descent  in  the 
male  line,  the  children  of  a  deceased  person  would  stand 
at  the  head  of  the  agnates,  and  very  naturally  receive  the 
greater  portion  of  the  inheritance.  It  is  not  probable  that 
the  third  great  rule,  which  gave  an  exclusive  inheritance  to 
the  children  of  the  deceased  owner,  had  become  established 
among  them.  The  discussion  of  inheritances  by  the  earlier 
and  later  writers  is  unsatisfactory,  and  devoid  of  accurate 
information.  Institutions,  usages  and  customs  still  gov- 
ernod  the  question,  and  could  alone  explain  the  system. 
Without  better  evidence  than  we  now  possess,  an  exclusive 
inheritance  by  children  cannot  be  asserted. 


CHAPTER  II. 

THE  THREE   RULES   OF   INHERITANCE — CONTINUED. 

Property  in  the  Upper  Status  of  Barbarism. — Slavery. — Tenure 
OF  Lands  in  Grecian  Tribes. — Culture  of  the  Period. — Its  Bril- 
liancy.— Third  Rule  of  Inheritance. — Exclusively  in  Children. — 
Hebrew  Tribes. — Rule  of  Inheritance. — Daughters  of  Zelophehad. 
— Property  remained  in  the  Phratry,  and  probably  in  the  Gens.^ 
The  Reversion. — Athenian  Inheritance. — Exclusively  in  Children. 
— The  Reversion. — Inheritance  remained  in  the  Gens. — Heiresses. — 
Wills. — Roman  Inheritance. — The  Reversion. — Property  remained  in 
the  Gens. — Appearance  of  Aristocracy. — Property  Career  of  the 
Human  Race. — Unity  of  Origin  of  Mankind. 

The  last  great  period  of  barbarism  was  never  entered  by 
the  American  aborigines.  It  commenced  in  the  Eastern, 
according  to  the  scheme  adopted,  with  the  production  and 
use  of  iron. 

The  process  of  smelting  iron  ore  was  the  invention  of 
inventions,  as  elsewhere  suggested,  beside  which  all  other 
inventions  and  discoveries  hold  a  subordinate  position. 
Mankind,  notwithstanding  a  knowledge  of  bronze,  were  still 
arrested  in  their  progress  for  the  want  of  efficient  metallic 
tools,  and  for  the  want  of  a  metal  of  sufficient  strength  and 
hardness  for  mechanical  appliances.  All  these  qualities 
were  found  for  the  first  time  in  iron.  The  accelerated  pro- 
gress of  human  intelligence  dates  from  this  invention.  This 
ethnical  period,  which  is  made  forever  memorable,  was,  in 
many  respects,  the  most  brilliant  and  remarkable  in  the 
entire  experience  of  mankind.     It  is  so  overcrowded  with 


540  ANCIENT  SO CIE  T V. 

achievements  as  to  lead  to  a  suspicion  that  many  of  the 
works  ascribed  to  it  belong  to  the  previous  period. 

IV.  Property  in  the  Upper  Status  of  Barbarism. — Near 
the  end  of  this  period,  property  in  masses,  consisting  of 
many  kinds  and  held  by  individual  ownership,  began  to  be 
common,  through  selfTe'd^agriculture,  manufactures,  local 
tradeand  foreign  commerce ;  but  the  old  tenure  of  lands 
under  which  they  were  held  in  common  had  not  given 
place,  except  in  part,  to  ownership  in  severalty.  System- 
atic slavery  originated  ia  _this  status.  It  stands  directly^ 
connected  with  the  production  of  property.  Out  of  it 
came  the  patriarchal  family  of  the  Hebrew  type,  and  the 
similar  family  of  the  Latin  tribes  under  paternal  power,  as 
well  as  a  modified  form  of  the  same  family  among  the 
Grecian  tribes.  From  these  causes,  but  more  particularly 
from  the  increased  abundance  of  subsistence  through  field 
agriculture,  nations  began  to  develop,  numbering  many 
thousands  under  one  government,  where  before  they  would 
be  reckoned  by  a  few  thousands.  The  localization  of  tribes 
in  fixed  areas  and  in  fortified  cities,  with  the  increase  of 
the  numbers  of  the  people,  intensified  the  struggle  for  the 
possession  of  the  most  desirable  territories.  It  tended  to 
advance  the  art  of  war,  and  to  increase  the  rewards  of  indi- 
vidual prowess.  These  changes  of  condition  and  of  the  plan 
of  life  indicate  the  approach  of  civilization,  which  was  to 
overthrow  gentile  and  establish  political  society. 

Although  the  inhabitants  of  the  Western  hemisphere 
had  no  part  in  the  experience  which  belongs  to  this  status, 
they  were  following  down  the  same  lines  on  which  the 
inhabitants  of  the  Eastern  had  passed.  They  had  fallen 
behind  the  advancing  column  of  the  human  race  by  just 
the  distance  measured  by  the  Upper  Status  of  barbarism 
and  the  superadded  years  of  civilization. 

We  are  now  to  trace  the  growth  of  the  idea  of  property 
in  this  status  of  advancement,  as  shown  by  its  recognition 
in  kind,  and  by  the  rules  that  existed  with  respect  to  its 
ownership  and  inheritance. 

The  earliest  laws  of  the  Greeks,  Romans  and  Hebrews, 


THE  THREE  RULES  OF  INHERITANCE.  541 

after  civilization  had  commenced,  did  little  more  than  turn 
into  legal  enactments  the  results  which  their  previous  ex- 
perience had  embodied  in  usages  and  customs.  Having 
the  final  laws  and  the  previous  archaic  rules,  the  interme- 
diate changes,  when  not  expressly  known,  may  be  inferred 
with  tolerable  certainty. 

At  the  close  of  the  Later  Period  of  barbarism,  great 
changes  had  occurred  in  the  tenure  of  lands.  It  was  gradu- 
ally tending  to  two  forms  of  ownership,  namely,  by  the  state 
and  by  individuals.  But  this  result  was  not  fully  secured 
until  after  civilization  had  been  attained.  Lands  among 
the  Greeks  were  still  held,  as  we  have  seen,  some  by  the 
tribes  in  common,  some  by  the  phratry  in  common  for 
religious  uses,  and  some  by  the  gens  in  common  ;  but  the 
bulk  of  the  lands  had  fallen  under  individual  ownership  in 
severalty.  \\~\  the  time  of  Solon,  while  Athenian  society 
was  still  gentile,  lands  in  general  were  owned  by  individuals, 
who  had  already  learned  to  mortgage  them  ; '  but  individual 
ownership  was  not  then  a  new  thing.  The  Roman  tribes, 
from  their  first  establishment,  had  a  public  domain,  the  A^cr 
Ronianns ;  while  lands  were  held  by  the  curia  for  religious 
uses,  by  the  gens,  and  by  individuals  in  severalty.  After 
these  social  corporations  died  out,  the  lands  held  by  them 
in  common  gradually  became  private  property.  Very  little 
is  known  beyond  the  fact  that  certain  lands  were  held  by 
these  organizations  for  special  uses,  while  individuals  were 
gradually  appropriating  the  substance  of  the  national  areas. 

These  several  forms  of  ownership  tend  to  show  that  the 
oldest  tenure,  by  which  land  was  held,  was  by  the  tribe  in 
common  ;  that  after  its  cultivati^  began,  a  portion  of  the 
tribe  lands  was  divided  aiiLorLg-tlie-gentes^each  of  which 
held  their  portion  in  common;  and  that  this  was  followed, 
in  course  oTlmveZhy  aHotm-eiits-to-i-ndivid-uals,  which  allot- 


'^EUVvvEzai  yap  'SoXcov  kv  Tovzoii,  on  ryji  re  itpoijitomiixivrji 

'^OpovS  dvElXs  TtoXXaxy  itETtrfyorai' 
7rpd6$£j'  ds  dovXevovGa,  vvv  kXev^ipa. 

— riutarch,  in  Solon,  c.  xv. 


542  ANCIENT  SOCIETY. 

ments  finally  ripened  into  individual  ownership  in  severalty. 
Unoccupied  and  waste  lands  still  remained  as  the  common 
property  of  the  gens,  the  tribe  and  the  nation.  This,  sub- 
stantially, seems  to  have  been  the  progress  of  experience 
with  respect  to  the  ownership  of  land.  Personal  property, 
generally,  was  subject  to  individual  ownership. 

The  monogamian  family  made  its  first  appearance  in  the 
Upper  Status  of  barbarism,  the  growth  of  which  out  of  a 
previous  syndyasmian  form  was  intimately  connected  with 
the  increase  of  property,  and  with  the  usages  in  respect  to 
its  inheritance.  Descent  had  been  changed  to  the  male 
line;  but  all  property,  real  as  well  as  personal,  remained,  as 
it  had  been  from  time  immemorial,  hereditary  in  the  gens. 

Our  principal  information  concerning  the  kinds  of  prop- 
erty, that  existed  among  the  Grecian  tribes  in  this  period,  is 
derived  from  the  Homeric  poems,  and  from  the  early  laws 
of  the  period  of  civilization  which  reflect  ancient  usages. 
Mention  is  made  in  the  Iliad  oi  fences'^  around  cultivated 
fields,  of  an  cnchmire  of  fifty  acres  {jtEvrrjKovroyvoi),  half 
of  which  was  fit  for  vines  and  the  remainder  for  tillage  ;  *  and 
it  is  said  of  Tydeus  that  he  lived  in  a  mansion  rich  in 
resources,  and  had  corn-producing  fields  in  abundance.' 
There  is  no  reason  to  doubt  that  lands  were  then  fenced 
and  measured,  and  held  by  individual  ownership.  It  indi- 
cates a  large  degree  of  progress  in  a  knowledge  of  prop- 
erty and  its  uses.  Breeds  of  horses  were  already  distin- 
guished for  particular  excellence.*  Herds  of  cattle  and 
flocks  of  sheep  possessed  by  individuals  are  mentioned,  as 
"  sheep  of  a  rich  man  standing  countless  in  the  fold."  ^ 
Coined  money  was  still  unknown,  consequently  trade  was 
by  barter  of  commodities,  as  indicated  by  the  follow- 
ing lines  :  "  Thence  the  long-haired  Greeks  bought  wine, 
some  for  brass,  some  for  shining  iron,  others  for  hides, 
some  for  the  oxen  themselves,  and  some  for  slaves.'"  Gold 
in  bars,  however,  is  named  as   passing  by  weight  and  esti- 

^  Iliad,  V,  go.  ^  lb.,  ix,  577.  ^  H'-,  xiv,  121.  ^  Ih.,  v,  265. 

'//'.,  iv,  433,   Buckley's  trans,  "/<''•,  vii,  472,  Buckley's  trans. 


THE  THREE  RULES  OF  INHERITANCE.  543 

mated  by  talents.'  Manufactured  articles  of  gold,  silver, 
brass  and  iron,  and  textile  fabrics  of  linen  and  woolen  in 
many  forms,  together  with  houses  and  palaces,  are  men- 
tioned. It  will  not  be  necessary  to  extend  the  illustrations. 
Those  given  are  sufficient  to  indicate  the  great  advance 
society  had  attained  in  the  Upper  Status  of  barbarism,  in 
contrast  with  that  in  the  immediately  previous  period. 

After  houses  and  lands,  flocks  and  herds,  and  exchange- 
able commodities  had  become  so  great  in  quantity,  and  had 
come  to  be  held  by  individual  ownership,  the  question  of 
their  inheritance  would  press  upon  human  attention  until 
the  right  was  placed  upon  a  basis  which  satisfied  the  grow- 
ing intelligence  of  the  Greek  mind.  Archaic  usages  would 
be  modified  in  the  direction  of  later  conceptions.  The  do- 
mestic animals  were  a  possession  of  greater  value  than  all 
kinds  of  property  previously  known  put  together.  They 
served  for  food,  were  exchangeable  for  other  commodities, 
were  usable  for  redeeming  captives,  for  paying  fines,  and  in 
sacrifices  in  the  observance  of  their  religious  rites.  More- 
over, as  they  were  capable  of  indefinite  multiplication  in 
numbers,  their  possession  revealed  to  the  human  mind  its 
first  conception  of  wealth.  Following  upon  this,  in  course 
of  time,  was  the  systematical  cultivation  of  the  earth,  which 
tended  to  identify  the  family  with  the  soil,  and  render  it  a 
property-making  organization.  It  soon  found  expression,  in 
the  Latin,  Grecian  and  Hebrew  tribes,  in  the  family  under 
paternal  power,  involving  slaves  and  servants.  Since  the 
labor  of  the  father  and  his  children  became  incorporated 
more  and  more  with  the  land,  with  the  production  of  do- 
mestic animals,  and  with  the  creation  of  merchandise,  it 
would  not  only  tend  to  individualize  the  family,  now  mono- 
gamian,  but  also  to  suggest  the  superior  claims  of  children 
to  the  inheritance  of  the  property  they  had  assisted  in  creat- 
ing.. Before  lands  were  cultivated,  flocks  and  herds  would 
naturally  fall  under  the  joint  ownership  of  persons  united 
in  a  group,  on  a  basis  of  kin,  for  subsistence.  Agnatic  in- 
heritance would  be  apt  to  assert  itself  in  this  condition  of 

^  Iliad,  xii,  274. 


544  ANCIENT  SOCIETY. 

things.  But  when  lands  had  become  the  subject  of  prop- 
erty, and  allotments  to  individuals  had  resulted  in  individ- 
ual ownership,  the  third  great  rule  of  inheritance,  which 
gave  the  property  to  the  children  of  the  deceased  owner, 
was  certain  to  supervene  upon  agnatic  inheritance.  There 
is  no  direct  evidence  that  strict  agnatic  inheritance  ever 
existed  among  the  Latin,  Grecian  or  Hebrew  tribes,  ex- 
cepting in  the  reversion,  established  alike  in  Roman,  Gre- 
cian and  Hebrew  law;  but  that  an  exclusive  agnatic  inher- 
itance existed  in  the  early  period  may  be  inferred  from  the 
reversion. 

When  field  agriculture  had  demonstrated  that  the  whole 
surface  of  the  earth  could  be  made  the  subject  of  property 
owned  by  individuals  in  severalty,  and  it  was  found  that  the 
head  of  the  family  became  the  natural  center  of  accumula- 
tion, the  new  property  career  of  mankind  was  inaugurated. 
It  was  fully  done  before  the  close  of  the  Later  Period  of 
barbarism.  A  little  reflection  must  convince  any  one  of 
the  powerful  influence  property  would  now  begin  to  exer- 
cise upon  the  human  mind,  and  of  the  great  awakening  of 
new  elements  of  character  it  was  calculated  to  produce. 
Evidence  appears,  from  many  sources,  that  the  feeble  im- 
pulse aroused  in  the  ,savage  mind  had  now  become  a  tre- 
mendous passion  in  the  splendid  barbarian  of  the  heroic 
age.  Neither  archaic  nor  later  usages  could  maintain  them- 
selves in  such  an  advanced  condition.  The  time  had  now 
arrived  when  monogamy,  having  assured  the  paternity  of 
children,  would  assert  and  maintain  their  exclusive  right  to 
inherit  the  property  of  their  deceased  father.' 

In  the  Hebrew  tribes,  of  whose  experience  in  barbarism 

'  The  Gecm^'tribes  when  first  known  historically  were  in  the  Upper  Status 
of  barbanSnP'^^  They  used  iron,  but  in  limited  quantities,  possessed  flocks  and 
herds,  cultivated  the  cereals,  and  manufactured  coarse  textile  fabrics  of  linen 
and  woolen  ;  but  they  had  not  then  attained  to  the  idea  of  individual  owner- 
ship in  lands.  According  to  the  account  of  Cresar,  elsewhere  cited,  the  arable 
lands  were  allotted  annually  by  the  chiefs,  while  the  pasture  lands  were  held  in 
common.  It  would  seem,  therefore,  that  the  idea  of  individual  property  in 
lands  was  unknown  in  Asia  and  Europe  in  the  Middle  Period  of  barbarism, 
but  came  in  durinsj  the  Later  Period. 


THE  THREE  RULES  OF  INHERITANCE.  545 

very  little  is  known,  individual  ownership  of  lands  existed 
before  the  commencement  of  their  civilization.  The  pur- 
chase from  Ephron  by  Abraham  of  the  cave  of  Machpelah 
is  an  illustration.'  They  had  undoubtedly  passed  through 
a  previous  experience  in  all  respects  similar  to  that  of  the 
Aryan  tribes ;  and  came  out  of  barbarism,  like  them,  in  pos- 
session of  the  domestic  animals  and  of  the  cereals,  together 
with  a  knowledge  of  iron  and  brass,  of  gold  and  silver, 
of  fictile  wares  and  of  textile  fabrics.  But  their  knowledge 
of  field  agriculture  was  limited  in  the  time  of  Abraham. 
The  reconstruction  of  Hebrew  society,  after  the  Exodus, 
on  the  basis  of  consanguine  tribes,  to  which  on  reaching 
Palestine  territorial  areas  were  assigned,  shows  that  civili- 
zation found  them  under  gentile  institutions,  and  below  a 
knowledge  of  political  society.  With  respect  to  the  own- 
ership and  inheritance  of  property,  their  experience  seems 
to  have  been  coincident  with  that  of  the  Roman  and  Gre- 
cian tribes,  as  can  be  made  out,  with  some  degree  of  clear- 
ness, from  the  legislation  of  Moses,  Inheritance  was  strictly 
within  the  phratry,  and  probably  within  the  gens,  namely 
"  the  house  of  the  father."  The  archaic  rule  of  inheritance 
among  the  Hebrews  is  unknown,  except  as  it  is  indicated 
by  the  reversion,  which  was  substantially  the  same  as  in  the 
Roman  law  of  the  Twelve  Tables.  We  have  this  law  of 
reversion,  and  also  an  illustrative  case,  showing  that  after 
children  had  acquired  an  exclusive  inheritance,  daughters 
succeeded  in  default  of  sons.  Marriage  would  then  transfer 
their  property  from  their  own  gens  to  that  of  their  hus- 
band's, unless  some  restraint,  in  the  case  of  heiresses,  was 
put  on  the  right.  Presumptively  and  naturally,  marriage 
within  the  gens  was  prohibited.  This  presented  the  last  great 
question  which  arose  with  respect  to  gentile  inheritance. 
It  came  before  Moses  as  a  question  of  Hebrew  inheritance, 
and  before  Solon  as  a  question  of  Athenian  inheritance,  the 
gens  claiming  a  paramount  right  to  its  retention  within  its 
membership;  and  it  was  adjudicated  by  both,  in  the  same 
manner.     It  may  be  reasonably  supposed   that  the  same 

'  Genesis,  xxiii,  13. 

35 


546  ANCIENT  SOCIETY. 

question  had  arisen  in  the  Roman  gentes,  and  was  in  part 
met  by  the  rule  that  the  marriage  of  a  female  worked  a 
deminiitio  capitis,  and  with  it  a  forfeiture  of  agnatic  rights. 
Another  question  was  involved  in  this  issue ;  namely,  whe- 
ther marriage  should  be  restricted  by  the  rule  forbidding 
it  within  the  gens,  or  become  free ;  the  degree,  and  not 
the  fact  of  kin,  being  the  measure  of  the  limitation.  This 
last  rule  was  to  be  the  final  outcome  of  human  experience 
with  respect  to  marriage.  With  these  considerations  in 
mind,  the  case  to  be  cited  sheds  a  strong  light  upon  the 
early  institutions  of  the  Hebrews,  and  shows  their  essential 
similarity  with  those  of  the  Greeks  and  Romans  under 
gentilism. 

Zelophehad  died  leaving  daughters,  but  no  sons,  and  the 
inheritance  was  given  to  the  former.  Afterwards,  these 
daughters  being  about  to  marry  out  of  the  tribe  of  Joseph, 
to  which  they  belonged,  the  members  of  the  tribe  objecting 
to  such  a  transfer  of  the  property,  brought  the  question 
before  Moses,  saying:  "  If  they  be  married  to  any  of  the 
sons  of  the  other  tribes  of  the  children  of  Israel,  then  shall 
the  inheritance  be  taken  from  the  inheritance  of  our  fathers, 
and  shall  be  put  to  the  inheritance  of  the  tribe  whereunto 
they  are  received:  so  shall  it  be  taken  from  the  lot  of  our 
inheritance."  ^  Although  this  language  is  but  the  state- 
ment of  the  results  of  a  proposed  act,  it  implies  a  grievance  ; 
and  that  grievance  was  the  transfer  of  the  property  from 
the  gens  and  tribe  to  which  it  was  conceived  as  belonging 
by  hereditary  right.  The  Hebrew  lawgiver  admits  this 
right  in  the  language  of  his  decision.  "  The  tribe  of  the 
sons  of  Joseph  hath  spoken  well.  This  is  the  thing  which 
the  Lord  doth  command  concerning  the  daughters  of  Zelo- 
phehad, saying,  Let  them  marry  to  whom  they  think  best : 
only  to  the  family  of  the  tribe  of  their  father  shall  they 
marry.  So  shall  not  the  inheritance  of  the  children  of  Is- 
rael remove  from  tribe  to  tribe :  for  every  one  of  the  chil- 
dren of  Israel  shall  keep  himself  to  the  inheritance  of  the 
tribe  of  his  fathers.     And   every  daughter  that   possesseth 

^Numbers,  xxxvi,  4. 


THE  THREE  RULES  OF  INHERITANCE.  547 

an  inheritance  in  any  tribe  of  the  children  of  Israel  shall  be 
wife  unto  one  of  the  family  of  the  tribe  of  her  father,  that 
the  children  of  Israel  may  enjoy  every  man  the  inheritance 
of  his  fathers."  '  They  were  required  to  marry  into  their 
own  phratry  {supra,  p.  368),  but  not  necessarily  into  their 
own  gens.  The  daughters  of  Zelophehad  were  accordingly 
"  married  to  their  father's  brother's  sons,"  "  who  were  not 
only  members  of  their  own  phratry,  but  also  of  their  own 
gens.     They  were  also  their  nearest  agnates. 

On  a  previous'occasion,  Moses  had  established  the  rule  of 
inheritance  and  of  reversion  in  the  following  explicit  lan- 
guage. "  And  thou  shalt  speak  unto  the  children  of  Israel, 
saying,  If  a  man  die  and  have  no  son,  then  you  shall  cause 
his  inheritance  to  pass  unto  his  daughters.  And  if  he  have 
no  daughter,  then  you  shall  give  his  inheritance  unto  his 
brothers.  And  if  he  have  no  brethren,  then  ye  shall  give  his 
inheritance  unto  his  father's  brethren.  And  if  his  father 
have  no  brethren,  then  ye  shall  give  his  inheritance  unto 
his  kinsman,  that  is  next  to  him  of  his  family,  and  he  shall 
possess  it."  ^ 

Three  classes  of  heirs  are  here  named;  first,  the  children 
of  the  deceased  owner;  second,  the  agnates,  in  the  order  of 
their  nearness;  and  third,  the  gentiles,  restricted  to  the 
members  of  the  phratry  of  the  decedent.  The  first  class  of 
heirs  were  the  children  ;  but  the  inference  would  be  that 
the  sons  took  the  property,  subject  to  the  obligation  of 
maintaining  the  daughters.  We  find  elsewhere  that  the 
eldest  son  had  a  double  portion.  In  default  of  sons,  the 
daughters  received  the  inheritance.  The  second  class  were 
the  agnates,  divided  into  two  grades ;  first,  the  brethren  of 
the  decedent,  in  default  of  children,  received  the  inherit- 
ance; and  second,  in  default  of  them,  the  brethren  of  the 
father  of  the  decedent.  The  third  were  the  gentiles,  also  in 
the  order  of  their  nearness,  namely,  '"his  kinsman  that  is 
next  to  him  of  his  family."  As  the  "  family  of  the  tribe  "  is 
the  analogue  of  the  phratry  {supra,  p.  369),  the  property,  in 
default  of  children  and  of  agnates,  went  to  the  nearest  phra- 

'  Numbers,  xxxvi,  5-9.  *  lb.,  xxxvi,  11.  '  lb.,  xxvii,  8-1 1. 


548 


ANCIENT  SOCIETY. 


tor  of  the  deceased  owner.  It  excluded  cognates  from  the 
inheritance,  so  that  a  phrator,  more  distant  than  a  father's 
brother,  would  inherit  in  preference  to  the  children  of  a 
sister  of  the  decedent.  Descent  is  shown  to  have  been  in 
the  male  line,  and  the  property  must  remain  hereditary  in 
the  gens.  It  will  be  noticed  that  the  father  did  not  inherit 
from  his  son,  nor  the  grandfather  from  his  grandson.  In 
this  respect  and  in  nearly  all  respects,  the  Mosaic  law 
agrees  with  the  law  of  the  Twelve  Tables.  It  affords  a 
striking  illustration  of  the  uniformity  of  human  experience, 
and  of  the  growth  of  the  same  ideas  in  parallel  lines  in  dif- 
ferent races. 

At  a  later  day,  the  Levitical  law  established  marriage  upon 
a  new  basis  independent  of  gentile  law.  It  prohibited  its 
occurrence  within  certain  prescribed  degrees  of  consanguin- 
ity and  affinity,  and  declared  it  free  beyond  those  degrees. 
This  uprooted  gentile  usages  in  respect  to  marriage  among 
the  Hebrews ;  and  it  has  now  become  the  rule  of  Christian 
nations. 

Turning  to  the  laws  of  Solon  concerning  inheritances,  we 
find  them  substantially  the  same  as  those  of  Moses.  From 
this  coincidence,  an  inference  arises  that  the  antecedent 
usages,  customs  and  institutions  of  the  Athenians  and  He- 
brews were  much  the  same  in  relation  to  property.  In  the 
time  of  Solon,  the  third  great  rule  of  inheritance  was  fully 
established  among  the  Athenians.  The  sons  took  the  estate 
of  their  deceased  father  equally  ;  but  charged  with  the  obli- 
gation of  maintaining  the  daughters,  and  of  apportioning 
them  suitably  on  their  marriage.  If  there  were  no  sons, 
the  daughters  inherited  equally.  This  created  heiresses 
{ininki) pi€)  by  investing  women  with  estates,  who  like  the 
daughters  of  Zelophehad,  would  transfer  the  property,  by 
their  marriage,  from  their  own  gens  to  that  of  their  hus- 
band. The  same  question  came  before  Solon  that  had 
been  brought  before  Moses,  and  was  decided  in  the  same 
way.  To  prevent  the  transfer  of  property  from  gens  to 
gens  by  marriage,  Solon  enacted  that  the  heiress  should 
marry  her  nearest  male  agnate,  although  they  belonged  to 


THE  THREE  RULES  OF  INHERITANCE.  e^^g 

the  same  gens,  and  marriage  between  them  had  previously 
been  prohibited  by  usage.  This  became  such  a  fixed  rule 
of  Athenian  law,  that  M.  De  Coulanges,  in  his  original  and 
suggestive  work,  expresses  the  opinion  that  the  inheritance 
passed  to  the  agnate,  subject  to  the  obligation  of  marrying 
the  heiress.'  Instances  occurred  where  the  nearest  agnate, 
already  married,  put  away  his  wife  in  order  to  marry  the 
heiress,  and  thus  gain  the  estate.  Protomachus,  in  the  Eu- 
bulides  of  Demosthenes,  is  an  example.^  But  it  is  hardly 
supposable  that  the  law  compelled  the  agnate  to  divorce 
his  wife  and  marry  the  heiress,  or  that  he  could  obtain 
the  estate  without  becoming  her  husband.  If  there  were 
no  children,  the  estate  passed  to  the  agnates,  and  in  de- 
fault of  agnates,  to  the  gentiles  of  the  deceased  owner. 
Property  was  retained  within  the  gens  as  inflexibly  among 
the  Athenians  as  among  the  Hebrews  and  the  Romans. 
Solon  turned  into  a  law  what,  probably,  had  before  become 
an  established  usage. 

The  progressive  growth  of  the  idea  of  property  is  illus- 
trated by  the  appearance  of  testamentary  dispositions  estab- 
lished by  Solon.  This  right  was  certain  of  ultimate  adop- 
tion ;  but  it  required  time  and  experience  for  its  develop- 
ment. Plutarch  remarks  that  Solon  acquired  celebrity  by 
his  law  in  relation  to  testaments,  which  before  that  was  not 
allowed;  but  the  property  and  homestead  must  remain  in 
the  gens  {yevsi)  of  the  decedent.  When  he  permitted  a 
person  to  devise  his  own  property  to  any  one  he  pleased,  in 
case  he  had  no  children,  he  honored  friendship  more  than 
kinship,  and  made  property  the  rightful  possession  of  the 
owner."  This  law  recognized  the  absolute  individual  owner- 
ship of  property  by  the  person  while  living,  to  which  was 

*  TAe  Ancient  City,  Lee  &  Shepard's  ed..  Small's  trans.,  p.  gg. 
^Demosthenes  against  Eubul.,  41. 

*  Ev6oxi)J.r]<jE  ds  xdv  raJ  Ttepl  SiaStjHcov  vco/icp-  Ttporspov  yap  ovk 
l^rjv,  ttAA'  iv  r(^  yivei  rou  rsSyrfHozoi  edai  rd  jprjjjara  xai  rov 
oiHov  MarafiEVEtv,  o  5'  g5  fiovT^Evai.  rii  iTCirps'ipai,  si  urj  Ttaldei  shv 
avrca,  dovvai  rd  avrov,  cpiXiav  te  6vyyEVEiai  iri/urjoE  i.i6cXXov 
nai  xdpiv  avdyxrjr.Mai  rd  xP}/Mo:tlx  Mzij/iara  tc^v  Lxoyvooy  litoL- 
rj6EV. — Plutarch,  Vita  Solon,  c,  21. 


550 


ANCIENT  SOCIETY. 


now  superadded  the  power  of  disposing  of  it  by  will  to 
whomsoever  he  pleased,  in  case  he  had  no  children  ;  but 
the  gentile  right  to  the  property  remained  paramount  so 
long  as  children  existed  to  represent  him  in  the  gens.  Thus 
at  every  point  we  meet  the  evidence  that  the  great  princi- 
ples, which  now  govern  society,  were  elaborated  step  by 
step,  proceeding  in  sequences,  and  tending  invariably  in 
the  same  upward  direction.  Although  several  of  these 
illustrations  are  drawn  from  the  period  of  civilization,  there 
is  no  reason  for  supposing  that  the  laws  of  Solon  were  new 
creations  independent  of  antecedents.  They  rather  em- 
bodied in  positive  form  those  conceptions,  in  relation  to 
property,  which  had  gradually  developed  through  experi- 
ence, to  the  full  measure  of  the  laws  themselves.  Positive 
law  was  now  substituted  for  customary  lavv. 

The  Roman  law  of  the  Twelve  Tables  (first  promulgated 
449  B.  c.)  *  contain  the  rules  of  inheritance  as  then  estab- 
lished. The  property  passed  first  to  the  children,  equally 
with  whom  the  wife  of  the  decedent  was  a  co-heiress ;  in 
default  of  children  and  descendants  in  the  male  line,  it 
passed  to  the  agnates  in  the  order  of  their  nearness;  and  in 
default  of  agnates  it  passed  to  the  gentiles.^  Here  we  find 
again,  as  the  fundamental  basis  of  the  law,  that  the  property 
must  remain  in  the  gens.  Whether  the  remote  ancestors 
of  the  Latin,  Grecian  and  Hebrew  tribes  possessed,  one 
after  the  other,  the  three  great  rules  of  inheritance  under 
consideration,  we  have  no  means  of  knowing,  excepting 
through  the  reversion.  It  seems  a  reasonable  inference  that 
inheritance  was  acquired  in  the  inverse  order  of  the  law  as 
it  stands  in  the  Twelve  Tables;  that  inheritance  by  the  gen- 
tiles preceded  inheritance  by  the  agnates,  and  that  inherit- 
ance by  the  agnates  preceded  an  exclusive  inheritance  by 
the  children. 

'  Livy,  iii,  54,  57. 

"  Intestatorum  hereditat.es  lege  xii  tabularum  prinium  ad  suos  heredes  perti- 
nent.— Gaius,  Inst.,  iii,  i.  Si  nuUus  sit  suorum  heredum,  tunc  hereditas 
pertinet  ex  eadem  lege  xii  tabularum  ad  adgnatos. — lb.,  iii,  9.  Si  r.ullus 
agnalus  sit,  eadem  lex  xii  tabularum  gentiles  ad  hereditatem  uocat. — //'.,  iii,  17. 


THE  THREE  RULES  OF  INHERITANCE.  551 

During  the  Later  Period  of  barbarism  a  new  element,  that 
of  aristocracy,  had  a  marked  development.  The  individual- 
ity of  persons,  and  the  increase  of  wealth  now  possessed  by 
individuals  in  masses,  were  laying  the  foundation  of  per- 
sonal influence.  Slavery,  also,  by  permanently  degrading 
a  portion  of  the  people,  tended  to  establish  contrasts  of 
condition  unknown  in  the  previous  ethnical  periods.  This, 
with  property  and  official  position,  gradually  developed  the 
sentiment  of  aristocracy,  which  has  so  deeply  penetrated 
modern  society,  and  antagonized  the  democratical  principles 
created  and  fostered  by  the  gentes.  It  soon  disturbed  the 
balance  of  society  by  introducing  unequal  privileges,  and 
degrees  of  respect  for  individuals  among  people  of  the  same 
nationality,  and  thus  became  the  source  of  discord  and 
strife. 

In  the  Upper  Status  of  barbarism,  the  office  of  *chief  in 
its  different  grades,  originally  hereditary  in  the  gens  and 
elective  among  its  members,  passed,  very  likely,  among  the 
Grecian  and  Latin  tribes,  from  father  to  son,  as  a  rule. 
That  it  passed  by  hereditary  right  cannot  be  admitted  upon 
existing  evidence  ;  but  the  possession  of  either  of  the  offices 
of  archon,  phylo-basileiis,  or  basileus  among  the  Greeks,  and 
Q){ princeps  and  rex  among  the  Romans,  tended  to  strengthen 
in  their  families  the  sentiment  of  aristocracy.  It  did  not, 
however,  become  strong  enough  to  change  essentially  the 
democratic  constitution  of  the  early  governments  of  these 
tribes,  although  it  attained  a  permanent  existence.  Prop- 
erty and  office  were  the  foundations  upon  which  aristocracy 
planted  itself. 

Whether  this  principle  shall  live  or  die  has  been  one  of 
the  great  problems  with  which  modern  society  has  been 
engaged  through  the  intervening  periods.  As  a  question 
between  equal  rights  and  unequal  rights,  between  equal  laws 
and  unequal  laws,  between  the  rights  of  wealth,  of  rank 
and  of  official  position,  and  the  power  of  justice  and  intel- 
ligence, there  can  be  little  doubt  of  the  ultimate  result. 
Although  several  thousand  years  have  passed  -^way  without 
the  overthrow  of  privileged  classes,  excepting  in  the  United 


552  ANCIENT  SOCIETY, 

States,  their  burdensome  character  upon  society  has  been 
demonstrated. 

Since  the  advent  of  civilization,  the  outgrowth  of  pro- 
/  perty  has  been  so  immense,  its  forms  so  diversified,  its  uses 
so  expanding  and  its  management  so  intelligent  in  the 
interests  of  its  owners,  that  it  has  become,  on  the  part  of 
\  the  people,  an  unmanageable  power.  The  human  mind 
stands  bewildered  in  the  presence  of  its  own  creation.  The 
time  will  come,  nevertheless,  when  human  intelligence  will 
rise  to  the  mastery  over  property,  and  define  the  relations 
of  the  state  to  the  property  it  protects,  as  well  as  the  obli- 
gations and  the  limits  of  the  rights  of  its  owners.  The  in- 
terests of  society  are  paramount  to  individual  interests,  and 
the  two  must  be  brought  into  just  and  harmonious  relations. 
I A  mere  property  career  is  not  the  final  destiny  of  mankind, 
\if  progress  is  to  be  the  law  of  the  future  as  it  has  been  of 
the  past.  The  time  which  has  passed  away  since  civiliza- 
tion began  is  but  a  fragment  of  the  past  duration  of  man's 
existence  ;  and  but  a  fragment  of  the  ages  yet  to  come, 
't'he  dissolution  of  society  bids  fair  to  become  the  termina- 
tion of  a  career  of  which  property  is  the  end  and  aim  ;  be- 
cause such  a  career  contains  the  elements  of  self-destruction. 
Democracy  in  government,  brotherhood  in  society,  equality 
in  rights  and  privileges,  and  universal  education,  foreshadow 
the  next  higher  plane  of  society  to  which  experience,  intel- 
ligence and  knowledge  are  steadily  tending.  It  will  be  a 
revival,  in  a  higher  form,  of  the  liberty,  equality  and  frater- 
nity of  the  ancient  gentes. 

Some  of  the  principles,  and  some  of  the  results  of  the 
growtft  of  the  idea  of  property  in  the  human  mind  have 
now  been  presented.  Although  the  subject  has  been  inad- 
equately treated,  its  importance  at  least  has  been  shown. 

With  one  principle  of  intelligence  and  one  physical  form, 
in  virtue  of  a  common  origin,  the  results  of  human  experi- 
ence have  been  substantially  the  same  in  all  times  and  areas 
in  the  same  ethnical  status. 

The  principle  of  intelligence,  although  conditioned  in  its 
powers  within  narrow  limits  of  variation,  seeks  ideal  stand- 


THE  THREE  RULES  OF  INHERITANCE.  553 

ards  invariably  the  same.  Its  operations,  consequently, 
have  been  uniform  through  all  the  stages  of  human  pro- 
gress. No  argument  for  the  unity  of  origin  of  mankind 
can  be  made,  which,  in  its  nature,  is  more  satisfactory.  A 
common  principle  of  intelligence  meets  us  in  the  savage,  in 
the  barbarian,  and  in  civilized  man.  It  was  in  virtue  of 
this  that  mankind  were  able  to  produce  in  similar  conditions 
the  same  implements  and  utensils,  the  same  inventions,  and 
to  develop  similar  institutions  from  the  same  original  germs 
of  thought.  There  is  something  grandly  impressive  in  a 
principle  which  has  wrought  out  civilization  by  assiduous 
application  from  small  beginnings  ;  from  the  arrow  head, 
which  expresses  the  thought  in  the  brain  of  a  savage,  to 
the  smelting  of  iron  ore,  v>'hich  represents  the  higher  intel- 
ligence of  the  barbarian,  and,  finally,  to  the  railway  train  in 
motion,  which  may  be  called  the  triumph  of  civilization. 
It  must  be  regarded  as  a  marv^lojAsJa£t_tlia.t_a4)prtioa_Df 
mankind  five  thousand-y-ear^-aga,,less.-or.-..mQxe,  attained  to 
civilization.  In  strictness  but  two  families,  the  Semitic 
and  the  Aryan,  accomplished  the  work  through  unassisted 
self-development.  The  Aryan  family  represents  the  central 
stream  of  human  progress,  because  it  produced  the  highest 
type  of  mankind,  and  because  it  has  proved  its  intrinsic 
superiority  by  gradually  assuming  the  control  of  the  earth. 
And  yet  civilization  must  be  regarded  as  an  accident  of  cir- 
cumstances. Its  attainment  at  some  time  was  certain  ;  but 
that  it  should  have  been  accomplished  when  it  was,  is  still 
an  extraordinary  fact.  The  hindrances  that  held  mankind  in 
savagery  were  great,  and  surmounted  with  difficulty.  After 
reaching  the  Middle  Status  of  barbarism,  civilization  hung 
in  the  balance  while  barbarians  were  feeling  their  way,  by 
experiments  with  the  native  metals,  toward  the  process  of 
smelting  iron  ore.  Until  iron  and  its  uses  were  known, 
civilization  was  impossible.  If  mankind  had  failed  to  the 
present  hour  to  cross  this  barrier,  it  would  have  afforded  no 
just  cause  for  surprise.  When  we  recognize  the  duration 
of  man's  existence  upon  the  earth,  the  wide  vicissitudes 
through  which  he  has  passed  in  savagery  and  in  barbarism. 


554 


ANCIENT  SOCIETY. 


and  the  progress  he  was  compelled  to  make,  civilization 
might  as  naturally  have  been  delayed  for  several  thou- 
sand years  in  the  future,  as  to  have  occurred  when  it  did  in 
the  good  providence  of  God.  We  are  forced  to  the  conclu- 
sion that  it  was  the  result,  as  to  the  time  of  its  achievement, 
of  a  series  of  fortuitous  circumstances.  It  may  well  serve 
to  remind  us  that  we  owe  our  present  condition,  with  its 
multiplied  means  of  safety  and  of  happiness,  to  the  struggles, 
the  sufferings,  the  heroic  exertions  and  the  patient  toil  of 
our  barbarous,  and  more  remotely,  of  our  savage  ancestors. 
Their  labors,  their  trials  and  their  successes  were  a  part  of 
the  plan  of  the  Supreme  Intelligence  to  develop  a  barbarian 
out  of  a  savage,  and  a  civilized  man  out  of  this  barbarian. 


INDEX. 


Abipones,  183. 

Adair,  James,  15,  77,  note  ;  83,  530. 

Adams,  Prof.  Henry,  273. 

Adoption,  ceremony  of,  among  Iro- 
quois, 81,  note. 

Age  of  Stone,  of  Bronze,  and  of  Iron,  8. 

Algonkin  tribes,  165. 

Alphabet,  phonetic,  12.  Its  invention, 
31,  note. 

Animals,  their  domestication,  li,  42. 

Archon,  office  of,  261. 

Arickarees,  165. 

Aristocracy.     Its  rise,  260.     Its  future, 

549- 

Army  organization  in  gentile  society, 
by  gentes,  by  phratries,  and  by 
tribes,  237.  In  Athenian  political 
society  by  property  classes,  265. 
In  Roman  by  same,  334. 

Arts  of  subsistence,  19.  i.  Fruits  and 
Roots,  20.  2.  Fish,  21.  3.  Fari- 
naceous Food,  22.  4.  Meat  and 
Milk,  24.      Field  Agriculture,  26. 

Arravvaks,  182. 

Aryan,  Family  of,  39,  468.  System  of 
consanguinity  and  affinity,  484. 
Table,  493. 

Assembly  of  the  people,  119,  120. 
Agora  of  Athenians,  245.  Coniitia 
CtDiata  of  the  Romans,  315,  340. 
Comitia  Centiuiata,  331,  333. 

Ashangos,  371. 

Athapasco-Apache  Tribes,  175. 

Australian  organization  on  basis  of  sex, 
50.  Classes,  52.  Descents,  57, 
note. 

Aztec  Confederacy,  186.  Of  three  Na- 
huatlac  tribes,  189.  When  estab- 
lished, 192.  Extent  of  territorial 
domination,  193.  Population  of 
Valley  of  Mexico,  195.  Of  Pue- 
blo, of  Mexico,  196,  note.  Gentes 
and  phratries,  197.  Ownership  of 
lands  in  common,  200.  Council 
of  Chiefs,  203.     Office  of  Teuctli, 


or    principal    war-chief,  206.     Az- 
tec monarchy  a  fiction,  213. 

B 

Bachofen,  Das  Mutterrecht,  349,  350, 
573,  note. 

Bandelier,  Ad.  F.,  200,  201,  note  ;  203, 
note. 

Bancroft,  11.  H.,  176. 

Barbarism,  period  of,  42.  Inventions 
and  discoveries  in  Later  Period,  32. 
In  Middle  Period,  33.  In  Older 
Period,  35.  Great  achievements 
in  this  Period,  42. 

Basileus,  246.  Probably  elective,  248 
Office  without  civil  functions,  252 
Office  of  Roman  Rex  elective,  253 
Each  a  general,  with  the  addition 
al  functions  of  a  priest  and  judge 
250.  Aristotle's  definition,  251 
Early  Grecian  governments  mili 
tary  democracies,  252,  274.  Ro 
mans  under  the  reges,  the  same 
253.  Office  of  basileus  abolished 
by  the  Athenians,  260,  274.  Of 
rex  by  the  Romans,  319. 

Basileia,  249.  Aristotle's  definition, 
256. 

Becker,  Prof.  W.  A.  Family  of  ancient 
Greeks,  475,  note.  Of  Romans, 
478,  note. 

Blackfeet  tribes,  171. 

Blood  revenge,  77,  23S. 

Bow  and  arrow  ;  its  invention  created 
an  epoch,  10.  Difficult  to  invent, 
21,  note. 

Burial  place  of  gens.  Usually  com- 
mon among  Indian  tribes,  83.  Of 
Tuscaroras,  84. 

Byington,Rev.  Dr.  Cyrus,  162 


Cameron,  Mr.  A.  S.  P.,  375. 
Categories  of  relatives :  of  Havvaiians, 


556 


INDEX. 


405.     Of  Chinese,  416.    In  Timceus 
of  Plato,  417. 

Cayugas,  gentes,  70.      Phratries,  91. 

Chief,  office  of,  elective,  72,  145.  Plead- 
chief  of  tribe,  118.  Described  as 
a  lord,  202.  No  analogy,  ib. 
Chief  of  Grecian  gens,  261. 

Cherokees,  164. 

Chickasas,  gentes,  163.     Phratries,    ib. 

Choctas,  gentes,  161.     Phratries,  99. 

Civilization,  Period  of.  Its  contribu- 
tions to  knowledge,  30,  31. 

Cleisthenes.  Founder  of  second  great 
plan  of  government,  216,  254. 
His  legislation,  270.  Institution 
of  Athenian  political  Society,  270. 
The  Deme,  or  Township,  ib. 
Local  tribe  or  county,  271.  Com- 
monwealth or  State,  272.  Inhabit- 
ants of  each  an  organized  self- 
governing  body  politic,  270—272. 

Coalescence  of  tribes  in  a  nation,  135, 
259- 

Confederacy  of  tribes,  122.  Iroquois 
Confederacy,  126.  Its  organiza- 
tion and  functions,  128.  Common 
gentes,  and  dialects  of  a  common 
language  its  basis,  123.  Aztec 
Confederacy,  186. 

Comanches,  177. 

Columbia  River,  Valley  of.  Seed  land 
of  Ganowanian  family,  108,  note. 
Its  salmon  fisheries,  bread  roots, 
and  game,  log,  note. 

Comilia  CHriata,  315,  340.  Centurlata, 
331.  333-      Tributa,  336. 

Consanguine  Family,  3S4,  401. 

Consanguinity,  Malayan  system  of,  old- 
est, 385.     Turanian   and   Ganowa- 
nian, the  second  great   form,   3S6. 
Aryan,  Semitic,  and  Uralian,  third 
great    form,    3S8.      Systems    natu- 
ral growths,    393.      Two    ultimate^ 
forms  ;  one  classificatory,  the  other  I 
descriptive,  394.  ,,  Nature  of  a  sy.s-' 
tem    of  consanguinity,    395.      Its 
permanence,  402,  408.^'  Details  of 
Malayan    system,    404.      Relatives 
in  categories,  407.     Its  origin,  410. 
Details  of  Ganowanian  and  Tura- 
nian, 435.     Origin  of  system,  422. 
Aryan  system,  485.    Its  origin,  490. 

Communism  in  living,  446,  453. 

Coulanges,  M.  De.  His  work,  "  The 
Ancient  City,"  234,  240,  549. 

Council  of  Chiefs,  119.    Iroquois  Coun- 


cil invested  chiefs  with  office,  136, 
141.  Manner  of  convening,  137, 
note.  Manner  of  transacting  busi- 
ness, 139.  Unanimity  required, 
140.  Aztec  Council,  203.  Grecian 
Council,  243.  Its  universality,  244. 
Roman  Comitia,  298.  Senate,  307, 
315.      Comitia  Centuriata,  331. 

Cox,  Prof.  Edward  F.  Analysis  of 
pottery  of  Mound  Builders,  15. 

Creeks,  160. 

Crees,  167. 

Crows,  159. 

Curtius,  Prof.,  348. 

Gushing,  Mr.  N.  A.,  530,  note. 

D 

Dakota  tribes,  154. 

Dance.  A  form  of  worship  among 
Indian  tribes,  116. 

Delawares,  loi,  171. 

Deme,  or  township  of  Athenians,  217. 

Democracy.  Universal  in  Ancient 
Society  and  inherited  from  the 
gentes,  73,  253.  Liberty,  equality, 
and  fraternity  cardinal  principles 
of  the  gens,  85.  Athenian  Demo- 
cracy, 253,  270. 

Descent  in  female  line  when  gens  is  in 
archaic  form,  67.  In  American 
Indian  tribes,  153-183.  In  male 
line,  155-157,  166-169,  171-182. 
How  changed  from  female  line  to 
male,  344.  Causes  which  produced 
tlie  change  in  Grecian  gentes,  345, 
In  female  line  among  Lycians,  347. 
Etruscans.  348.  Views  of  Curtius, 
348.  Of  Bachofen,  349.  Among 
Athenians  prior  to  Cecrops,  350. 
Required  to  explain  certain  mar- 
riages. 351.  Legend  of  Danaidae, 
354.  In  female  line  among  Ashiras, 
Aponos,  and  Ashangos  of  Africa, 
371.      Banyi,  372.      Bangalas,  373. 

Du  Chaillu,  371. 


Ethnical  Periods,  8-13.  Advantages 
of  these  subdivisions,  16.  Their 
relative  length,  38. 

Ephoralty  of  the  Spartans,  250. 

Eries,  126,  note;  149-153. 

Etruscans,  279,  348. 


Family,  the,  Five  successive  forms,  384 


INDEX. 


557 


The  con=;anfjuine,  384,  401.  The 
punaluan,  384,  424.  The  syndy- 
asmian  or  pairing,  384,  453.  The 
patriarchal,  384,  465.  The  mono- 
gamian,  384,  468.  First,  second, 
and  fifth  radical,  creating  three 
systems  of  consanguinity  and  af- 
finity, 324.  Consanguine  family, 
origin  of  relationship  in,  410. 
Punaluan  family,  origin  of  rela- 
tionship in,  422.  Syndyasmian, 
453-461.  Patriarchal,  465.  Mono- 
gamian  family  of  ancient  Germans, 
471  ;  of  Homeric  Greeks,  472,  475, 
note  ;  of  Romans,  477.  Origin  of 
relationship  in,4S5-490.  Sequence 
of  institutions  connected  with  the 
family,  498. 

Freeman,   Dr.,  on   the  organization  of 
German  tribes,  361,  note. 

Fison,   Rev.  Lorimer,  14,  51,  note  ;  54, 
374.  375,  403- 


Ganowanian  family,  its  name,  152. 

Ganowanian  system  of  consanguinity 
and  affinity,  432,  435.     Table,  447. 

Gentile  organization,  62,  185.  Insti- 
tutions democratical,  212. 

Gens  of  Australian  tribes,  51-56,  of 
Iroquois,  62.  Founded  upon  kin, 
63.  Definition  of  a  gens,  67. 
Descent  in  female  line,  68.  In- 
termarriage in  the  gens  prohibited, 
69.  Rights,  privileges,  and  obliga- 
tions of  its  members,  71-84.  Lib- 
erty, equality,  and  fraternity,  its 
cardinal  principles,  85.  Grecian 
gens,  215.  Descent  in  male  line, 
216.  Rights,  privileges,  and  ob- 
ligations of  its  members,  222. 
Unit  of  the  social  system,  226. 
Roman  gens,  277.  Definition  of 
a  gentilis,  283.  Descent  in  male 
line,  284.  Rights,  privileges,  and 
obligations  of  its  members,  285. 
Number  of  persons  in  a  Roman 
gens,  299.  Gentes  in  other  tribes 
of  mankind,  357-379-  Probable 
origin  of  the  gens,  377. 

Gibbs,  George,  175,  176. 

Government.  First  plan  gentile  and 
social,  6.  Organic  series,  gens, 
phratry,  tribe,  and  confederacy, 
with  a  final  coalescence  of  tribes  in 
a  nation,   49,  66.     First   stage,  a 


government  of  one  power,  the 
council  of  chiefs  ;  second,  of  two 
powers,  a  council  and  a  military 
commander  ;  third,  of  three  pow- 
ers, a  council,  a  general,  and  an 
assembly  of  the  people,  119,  120, 
257.  Second  plan  territorial  and 
political,  6.  Property  classes  of 
Solon,  264.  Attic  Deme  or  town- 
ship, 270.  Registration  in  Deme, 
ib.  Local  tribe  or  county,  271. 
The  state,  272.  Athenian  demo- 
cracy, 273.  No  chief  executive 
magistrate,  275.  Roman  political 
society,  322.  Property  classes  of 
Servius  TuUius,  331.  The  cen- 
turies, 333.  Coinitia  Centuriata, 
333.  The  census,  336.  City 
wards,  337.  Registration  in  ward 
of  residence,  336.  Municipality 
of  Rome,  339.  Transition  from 
gentile      into      political      society, 

3-^°■  .  ,       .        J 

Grote,  on  Grecian  gentes,  phratries  and 

tribes,  220-22S,  230-232.  His 
view  of  the  early  Grecian  govern- 
ments erroneous,  247.  His  illus- 
tration from  the  Iliad,  248. 


H 

Hale,  Horatio,  127,  note  ;  153,  175. 

Hart,  Robert.  On  the  hundred  fami- 
lies of  the  Chinese,  364. 

Hebrew  tribes,  366.  Marriages  \\\ 
early  period  indicate  gentes,  with 
descent  in  the  female  line,  367. 
Gentes  and  phratries  in  the  time  of 
Moses,  368. 

Hodenosaunian  tribes,  153. 

House  life,  and  plan  of  living  among 
savage  and  barbarous  tribes  deserve 
special  study,  399,  446. 


lowas,  156,  166. 

Inventions  and  discoveries,  2g,  45. 

Iron,    II.       Process    of    smelting,    43. 

Ancient     side     hill     furnaces     in 

Switzerland,  43,  note. 
Iroquois,    gentes,    63-70.       Phratries, 

90-97.    Tribes,  102.   Confederacy, 

122.       Sachems    of     the     general 

council,  150. 


558 


INDEX. 


J 

Jones,  C.  C,  14,  note. 

K 

Kaskaskias,  107. 

Kaws,  106,  156. 

Keepers  of  the  faith  in  the  Iroquois,  82. 

Kennicott,  Robert,  175. 

Kikapoos,  170. 

Kolushes,  175. 


Lagunas,  180. 

Lands  owned  in  common  among  In- 
dian tribes  in  Lower  Status  of  bar- 
barism, 151-174.  With  a  posses- 
sory right  in  individuals  to  occu- 
pied lands,  530.  In  common  by 
Aztec  gentes  probably,  200.  By 
Roman  gentes,  290,  292,  note  ; 
541.  Some  by  phratries  and  tribes, 
292. 

Latham,  R.  G.,  362,  364,  371. 

Language,  growth  of,  5.  Question  of 
its  origin,  36,  note. 

Lockwood,  Charles  G.  N.,  375. 

Locrians,  hundred  families  of,  350. 

Lycians,  descent  in  female  line,  347, 
348. 

Lubbock,  Sir  John,  14,  183,  364. 

M 

Magars  of  Nepaul,  362. 

Maine,  Sir  Henry,  227.  On  Celtic 
groups  of  kinsmen  on  French 
estates,  358.  His  original  re- 
searches, 507. 

Malayan  system  of  consanguinity  and 
affinity,  its  origin,  410. 

McLennan,  Mr  J.  F.,  362,  409.  Note 
concerning  his  work  on  "  Primi- 
tive Marriage,"  509-521. 

Mandans,  158. 

Marriage,  Australian  scheme,  53,  57. 
Hebrew,  410.  Consanguine,  401. 
Punaluan,  424.  Syndyasmian, 
453.     Monogamian,  468. 

Menominees.  170. 

Metals,  native,  44. 

Minnilarees,  158. 

Miamis,  107,  168. 

Mississippi  tribes,  168. 

Missouri  tribes,  155. 

ATohegan  gentes,  173.     Phratries,  174. 

Mohawks,  125. 


Mommsen,  Theodor,  on  domestication 
of  animals,  23.  Family  names, 
78.  On  introduction  of  agricul- 
ture, 277,  note.  Roman  gens, 
281.  On  gentile  and  tribal  lands, 
291. 

Montezuma,  principal  war-chief  of 
Aztec  Confederacy,  206,  207.  Ten- 
ure and  functions  of  the  office, 
2®6.  His  seizure  of  Cortes,  211, 
note.  His  deposition  by  the 
Aztecs,  211. 

Monogamian  Family,  384,  468. 

Monarchy  incompatible  with  gentil- 
ism,  124,  252. 

Moqui  Village  Indians,  86,  179. 

MuUer,  Max,  23. 

Munsees,  173. 

N 

Names  of  members  of  a  gens,  78.  How 
bestowed,  79.  The  name  confer- 
red gentile  rights,  ib. 

Nation  formed  by  coalescence  of  tribes, 
135,  242,  259. 

Neutral  nation,  149,  153. 

Naucraries  of  Athenians,  262. 

Niebuhr,  on  Roman  and  Grecian  gen- 
tile questions,  23,  281,  287,  292, 
note;  295,  29S,  305,  313,  315, 
325. 

o 

Ojibwas,  106,  166. 

Omahas,  106,  155. 

Oneidas,  70. 

Onondagas,  gentes,  70.     Phratries,  91. 

Osages.  106. 

Osborn,  Rev.  John,  Rotuman  sys- 
tem of  consanguinity,  403,  note  : 
419. 

Otawas,  167.  Otawa  Confederacy, 
106. 

Otoes,  106,  155. 


Parkman,  Francis,  153,  note. 
Patriarchal  Family,  384,  465,  480. 
Patricians,  Roman,  326,  330. 
Pawnees,  164. 
Peorias,  107. 
Peschel,  Oscar,  14,  413. 
Phratry,     its    character,    89.     Of    Iro- 
quois,   90.      Its  functions,    94-97. 


INDEX. 


559 


Phratric  organization  in  American 
Indian  tribes,  90  et  s.-q.  Of  Athe- 
nians, 220.  Obes  of  Spartans, 
219.  Definition  of  DilcKarchus, 
236.  Objects  of  phratry,  237.  Uses 
in  army  organization,  2S7.  Plira- 
triarcli,  240.  Blood  revenge,  238. 
Roman  curia  a  phratry,  303.  Its 
composition  and  functions,  304, 
305. 
Piankeshaws,  T07. 

Plebeians,  persons  unconnected  with 
any  gens,  266.  Unattached  class, 
at  Athens,  267.  Made  citizens  by 
Solon,  268.  Roman  plebeians, 
324.  325- 
Potawattamies,  166,  167. 
Property,  growth  of,  6.  Its  inheri- 
tance. First  Rule  :  In  American 
Indian  tribes,  75,  153,  185,  528, 
530  ;  in  Status  of  savagery,  526  ; 
in  Lower  Status  of  barbarism,  528. 
Second  Rule,  531  :  Property  in 
Middle  Status,  540  ;  in  Upper  Sta- 
tus, ib.  Third  Rule,  544  :  He- 
brew inheritance,  545,  547  ;  daugh- 
ters of  Zelophehad,  546  ;  Athenian 
inheritance,  548  ;  Roman,  550  ; 
property  career  of  civilized  na- 
tions, 522. 
Polyandry,  409. 
Polygyny,  404. 

Political  society,  218.  Institution  of 
Athenian,  256.  Experiments  of 
Theseus,  25S,  259.  Draco,  263. 
Legislation  of  Solon,  264.  Prop- 
erty classes,  ib.  Organization  of 
army,  265.  Legislation  of  Cleis- 
thenes,  270.  Attic  deme  or  town- 
ship, ib.  Inhabitants  of  each  a 
body  politic,  with  powers  of  local 
self-government,  271.  Local  tribe 
or  county,  ib.  The  Athenian 
Commonwealth  or  State,  272. 
Government  founded  upon  terri- 
tory and  upon  property,  ib.  Pow- 
ers of  gentes,  phratries,  and  tribes 
transferred  to  the  demes,  coun- 
ties, or  state,  272,  274.  No 
chief  executive  magistrate,  275. 
Institution  of  Roman  political  so- 
ciety, 323-342. 
Pottery,  13,  15,  16. 

Punaluan  Family,  384,  424.  Of  Ha- 
waiians,  427.  Of  Britons,  429. 
Other  tribes,  430,431. 


Punkas,  106,  155. 

Powell,  Maj.  J.  W.,  536,  537. 


Quappas,  106. 


Q 


R 


Ratio  of  human  progress,  29.  Geomet- 
rical, 3S. 

Raw,  Prof.  Charles,  14,  note. 

Religious  ideas,  growth  of,  5.  Re- 
ligious rites,  81,  222,  289.  Faith 
and  worsliip  of  American  Indian 
tribes,  115. 

Roman  tribe,  374.     State,  319,  331. 

Rome,  founding  of,  278,  309,  310,  312. 


Sachem,  71.  Elective  tenure  of  the 
office,  72.  Iroquois  mode  of  elect- 
ing and  investing  sachems,  141, 
144.     Aztec  sachems,  202. 

Salish,  Sahaptin,  and  Kootenay  tribes, 
177- 

Savagery,  its  contributions  to  knowl- 
C'^lge,  36.  Formative  period  of 
mankind,  41.  American  aborigi- 
nes commenced  their  career  in 
America  in  savagery,  40. 

Sawks  and  Foxes,  170. 

Schoolcraft,  Henry  R.,  on  the  word 
"  totem,"  165. 

Scottish  Clan,  357. 

Semitic  family,  39. 

Senecas,  gentes,  70.  Phratries,  90. 
Medicine  Lodges,  97. 

Sequence  of  institutions  connected 
with  the  family,  498. 

Shawnees,  168. 

Shoshones,  177.  ^7 

Society,  gentile  and  political.  See 
"  Government,"  and  "  Political  So- 
ciety." 

South  American  Indian  tribes,  182. 

Subsistence,  Arts  of,  19.  Fish  and 
game,  26.  Farinaceous  food,  22, 
26.  Meat  and  milk,  24.  Made 
unlimited  by  field  agriculture,  26. 

-Syndyasmian  family,  3S4,  453. 


Taplin,  Rev.  George,  374. 
Thlinkeets,    gentes,    loi,    176.     Phra- 
tries, lOI. 


560 


IaXDEX. 


Thums,  or  gentes  of  Magars  of  Nepaul, 

362. 
Totem.      The  symbol  of  a  gens  ;  thus, 

the  figure  of  a  wolf  is  the  totem  of 

the  wolf  gens,  165. 
Tribe,    Indian.       Definition    of,    103. 

Natural    growth  through  segmen- 
tation, 104,  125.     Attributes  of  an 

American    Indian    tribe,  112,  116. 

Athenian  tribe,  241.     Roman  tribe, 

302,  311. 
Turanian  system  of  consanguinity  and 

affinity,  435.      Its  origin,  422,  445. 

Remains  of  system  in  Grecian  and 

Roman  tribes,  482. 
Tuscaroras,  gentes,  70.     Phratries,  93. 

Burial-place,  84. 
Tyler,   Mr.    Edward    B.,    13,   14,   182. 

On  the  clans  of  tribes  in    India, 

364- 

u 

Upper  Missouri  tribes,  158. 


Valley  of  Columbia,  seed  land  of  Gano- 

wanian  family,  log,  and  note. 
Village  Indians,  15 1,  178. 

w 

Wampum,  belts  of,  their  use,  139,  142. 

War-chief,  germ  of  the  office  of  a  chief 
executive  Magistrate,  King,  Em- 
peror, and  President,  129,  146. 
Principal  war-chiefs  of  Iroquois, 
146.  Office  elective,  ib.  Of  Az- 
tecs, 207.  Office  of  Teuctli  elec- 
tive, 210.  Basileus  of  Grecian 
tribes,  246.  Probably  elective,  ib. 
Rex  of  Roman  tribes,  300.  Nomi- 
nated by  the  Senate,  and  elected 
by  the  Comitia  Curiata,  ib. 

Weaws,  107. 

Winnebagoes,  157. 

Wright,  Rev.  Ashur,  83,  455 

Wyandotes,  153. 

z 

Zuni  Village  Indians,  178. 


b 


y^ 


/ 


a 


f  < 


',!> 


^ 


/^ 


^ 


("^ 


mop4^y       ^mivm/^^     ^iosANCEifj> 


■n- 


d  bel 


f'' 


/   /S^,    /S^'r>    s^-"^ 
4      y      %-..'■       .->   *v";^ 


ir^-  -O  ^-  '*- 


.Ct.YnLN0Vl9<*0CT0 


5  •(-"■-l^. 


•  (^■6'k,l'-^  ■■' 


QL 


NOV  19  ■911 

0 


\n\ 


32M 


^^ 


-\0l^«^ 


vVi 


\)  ri 


y 


^^OFCAUFOeto. 


.sVlOSANCHfj-;. 


fr 


\  3 


^  yi'l22  2154 


'Jii.jfiryj! 


£  Iv. —  g 

.Sa3AINn-3Wv 


f 


mm/A 


t 


f 


%a3AIN(l-3WV' 


\q 


x-llBRARYOc 


>i. 


mm/A 


f 


vvlOSANCElfjt,. 


'^/ja3AiNn]v 


LlFOft^ 


IS 


JRARYQr^      j^UIBR" 


nV3J0^ 


4 


V 


•  AU  vcuiii  ;i 


NIVERV/v 


~r      o 


mm/Aj 


V^y 


Jjpi 


v^V 


^. 


NvsDi^      '^/ia3AiNn3Wv        >&AavHani^      ^<?AavaaiH^ 


%\i\ 


IRARYO/         .^ILIBRARYQ^ 

I  r^^    -^  1  I  r^^ 


\WEUNIVER^//») 


^lOSANCElfj> 


